Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Dr Ernesto 'Che' Guevara?

Resolved

Should not the title be, Dr Ernesto 'Che' Guevara?, I am just wondering because I was of the mind set that 'Che' graduated from medical school, I know it was not of the time of the "Motorcycle Diaries", but it may of been later, I am not objecting to the page just questioning. Bobbutcher (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CREDENTIAL, article titles do not include personal titles. Grsz¹¹ 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but was 'Che' a doctor? and if so shouldn't it be stated somewhere in the artcle 86.139.140.138 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BobButcher & IP 86, the article does state this at the end of the 'Early Life' section:

:: "Upon returning to Argentina, he completed his studies and received his medical diploma in June 1953, making him officially "Dr. Ernesto Guevara".[22]" --- Sourced to pg 98 of Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life

Moreover, although there is an incorrect often repeated "urban legend" that he never graduated medical school, a copy of Guevara's original medical diploma (showing that he in fact graduated) can be found on [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer - Translated from the Spanish by Sarah L. Smith, Marea Editorial, 2006, ISBN 9871307071. Grsz11 is also correct that the "Dr." would not be used.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were to use a personal title, it would probably make more sense to use the one he was most frequently styled with, i.e., "Major General Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". Heather (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Last Words ?

This line specifically "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."[112] from the article is questionable (while not an expert, i have read that this line is a myth made after his death) and makes me question some of the other statements made about Gueverra. When checking the source provided it links back to the same wiki page and source: [112] is non-existent, as i'll bet a lot on this page are. Any of those who want to keep wiki to the standard it tries to be, please investigate this. 68.229.47.130 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

IP 68, the stated source is Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (pg 739). You are also incorrect in your statement that "it links back to the wiki page", once you click on the [112] number then click on 'Anderson 1997' which will take you to the fully listed ref down below (the entire article is set up this way) hence ALL of the refs are linked in contradiction to your remark that they are "non existent". Our "standard"(s) at Wikipedia are (among others) Wp:Verify, Wp:Reliable and Wp:Undue. Jon Lee Anderson's book (most commonly identified as the 'definitive' work on the subject in question) adheres to all of these policies. Now yes there have been several accounts of his last words --- for instance Castañeda's Compañero cites a different statement on pg 401, as does Taibo II's Guevara: Also Known As Che - which reports a different passage on pg 561 ---. I am fine with including a content note listing the several reported last phrases, however this "Shoot coward" phrase has become the most commonly listed last words in the majority of sources. What evidence do you have to dispute it?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, his executioner was interviewed in Adam Curtis' documentary 638 Ways to Kill Castro, and reported his last words as being along the lines of "tell my wife to remarry; I want her to be happy". Heather (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Heather, nice to meet you. To correct your assertion, the man interviewed in the documentary is not Che's executioner (Mario Terán), but rather CIA agent Félix Rodríguez who reportedly spoke with Che before leaving the schoolhouse to speak to Terán ("aim below the neck"). Rodríguez's comments are noted on [pg 738] of Anderson's book which he states were "Tell Fidel that he will soon see a triumphant revolution in America ... and tell my wife to remarry and to try and be happy." However, it is about 10 minutes later that according to Anderson [pg 739], Terán enters the schoolhouse alone and Che speaks the last words of "Shoot coward ... etc". Thus, the two are not mutually exclusive, and do not contradict one another.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"U.S.-backed Cuban Dictator" (Batista)

User: Luis Napoles has attempted to remove the above information twice recently. Once claiming:

"Pov. Just because Cuban government was not opposed (and it was) by the US does not mean that Cuba was "US-backed" (is France US-backed? Relations with France are much friendlier than ever with Cuba)"

and again after I sourced the content to an NPR audio report stating:

"Not in the source, for obvious reasons"

... despite the fact that the given link ---> (click on the first "Listen Now") begins in the first 13 seconds (00:9-00:13) with this EXACT verbatim phrase.

With this in mind and in anticipation of a likely deletion forthcoming again, per - WP:VERIFY - I figured I would utilize this talk page to list "several" sources which corroborate the phrase "U.S.-backed Dictator" in reference to Fulgencio Batista.

The following below are all book titles (accessible by Google books) followed by the page number and verbatim phrase contained within the source:

Cuba: idea of a nation displaced - page 77 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America‎ - Page 262 .... "US -backed military dictatorship"

The Columbia history of Latinos in the United States since 1960‎ - Page 149 .... "US -backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Breaking the real axis of evil: how to oust the world's last dictators by 2025‎ - Page 231 .... "overthrow of the US -backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista"

America's other war: terrorizing Colombia‎ - Page 27 .... "overthrowing the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

The Puerto Rican movement: voices from the diaspora‎ - Page 39 .... "the fall of US -backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Rockets and Missiles: The Life Story of a Technology‎ - Page 74 .... "overthrown US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Colonialism: an international, social, cultural, and political encyclopedia‎ - Page 157 .... "against US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Encyclopedia of Latino popular culture‎ - Page 75.... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Greenwood Dictionary of World History‎ - Page 41 .... "overthrow of US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Che Guevara: In Search of Revolution‎ - Page 46 .... "US -backed Cuban government led by Fulgencio Batista"

Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic‎ - Page 127 .... "the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Cold War, 1945-1991: Leaders and other important figures in the Soviet Union - Page 134 .... "Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista … against the US-backed Batista regime"

Facts about the 20th century‎ - Page 285 .... "overthrew US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Latino/a Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society‎ - Page 542 .... "oust the US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Cuba and the coming American Revolution‎ - Page 65 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press‎ - Page 122 .... "with Fulgencio Batista, the US-backed dictator"

Children of Cain: violence and the violent in Latin America‎ - Page 111 .... "US -backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

The Iraq war: causes and consequences‎ - Page 36 .... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Robert F. Kennedy and the death of American idealism‎ - Page 54 .... "The US -backed dictator, General Fulgencio Batista"

Changing the history of Africa: Angola and Namibia‎ - Page 105 .... "US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista"

Endless enemies: the making of an unfriendly world‎ - Page 256 .... "Fulgencio Batista, the US -backed dictator"

If you don't prefer books, a quick web search also lists these web articles from the

Telegraph ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Reuters ... "overthrow U.S.-backed dictator"

Washington Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Capitalism Magazine = (now there's a bastion of Communism) ... "U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

Boston Globe ... "US-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"

CNN ... "toppled a longstanding U.S.-backed dictator."

Irish Times ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

BBC ... "US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista"

National Post ... "U.S.-backed dictator"

Miami Herald ... "U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista"</

>

Now Luis Napoles, I trust that you would agree that listing all of the above ref's in the lead might "be a bit much", thus if you can not provide any evidence to dispute this well known and accepted historical fact (which I document above) per Wp:Undue, WP:Verify, Wp:Reliable - and if there is not editor Wp:Consensus to dispute the above material or its inclusion - then please refrain from removing this important historical detail from the article going forward. Thanks   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you surely could substantiate what this "backing" consisted of. The United States was among the last countries in the Americas to recognize his government and probably the first country to demand end to it. The Cuban communists and labor unions were his core support groups, but of course the historical reality does not play well with your mission to demonize the United States by adding nominally sourced weasel words you refuse to substantiate. If he was "backed", then you should be able explain what it meant per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, or even better, a general definition of "backed".Luis Napoles (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, the WP:Lead is for a summary of the main points. Per WP:LEADCITE: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body." Your plethora of caveats, stipulations, and Wp:Pov Wp:Weasel explanations for such a commonly utilized phrase in nearly all the Wp:Reliable sources (i.e. “U.S.-backed Cuban Dictator”), not only makes for bad prose and composition as you have attempted to do here, but it violates WP:Undue. We are here to document the consensus of the sources, thus if the overwhelming majority of sources reflect a general opinion "i.e. “Batista was a U.S.-backed dictator", then our goal is for the article to reflect this view = that is WP:NPOV (and my view on the matter is irrelevant, as is yours). Treating opinions which have different levels of support as though they had equal levels of support is POV and, frankly, misinformative if not deceptive ... this would include your Wp:Fringe theory that Batista was, contrary to popular opinion and fact, a "Communist", "humble labor organizer", "peacefully elected President" - "Man of the people", who was overthrown by the United States. If you wish to further this revisionist & historical negationist view, I would suggest you either get your own blog, or attempt to gain some editor Wp:Consensus on the talk page for Fulgencio Batista, as this article would not be the relevant place to "correct" the historical majority through WP:Original Research – while inserting a litany of badly formed sentences which obstruct the flow of an article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Having seen you attack editors in multiple articles, it was unsurprising that your response to issues in the article consisted of only personal attacks. If he was "backed", then you should be able explain what it meant per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. But you won't do that because you know that substantiation would make it look a lot closer to the reality.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, I have never attacked you as a person (I don’t even know who you are), I have though criticized your actions - which violate nearly all wiki policy in a range of ways. You are more than welcome to get your own blog, and rewrite the history however you like, however we are here to cite what the majority of published reliable sources say. They clearly use the phrase "U.S.-backed dictator" solely (in fact I could have sourced this to hundreds more books and articles). It is your prerogative to not agree with this description (some people still don't believe humans landed on the moon) - but it is not your prerogative to supplant wikipedia with your Wp:Fringe theories that Batista was a "leftist, labor, & Communist elected president & social reformer - who was an enemy of the U.S.". This unfortunately does not match the published reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You have never replied to simple request to substantiate what "US-backed" means, particularly during the year before the revolution. It took months before Batista received diplomatic recognition after 1952. The United States was the only Western country to put Batista under embargo (Batista bought arms from the British). Castro received diplomatic recognition within days and Castro's rebels were directly supported by the United States embassy - was Castro "US-backed"? Encyclopedia Britannica, which you earlier claimed to be a reliable source, has not a single word about support from the United States. Indeed, Encyclopedia Britannica says Batista was backed by "the army, the civil service, and organized labour". Of course, you will try to claim that Encyclopedia Britannica is not reliable anymore, or resort to attacking other editors like you have repeatedly done in the past. Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, this is an article on Che Guevara, and thus a summarized form of "U.S.-backed dictator" is sufficient to describe the situation. -(1)- If you want to expand and include your caveats and convoluted stipulations, then I would recommend the Fulgencio Batista article (which you have already dramatically slanted) or maybe creating a new article on the foreign relations of the Batista regime etc. We are here on Wikipedia to document the published reality of the majority of Wp:Reliable sources. The majority of these sources utilize this description, and thus we follow in kind and echo them. If you would like to revise the record through Historical Negationism, then move your Wiki ‘crusade’ offline and work on getting published and challenging this often repeated description which you believe to be inaccurate (see WP:OR). It does not matter what you or I believe, what matters is the fact that the majority of nearly all sources describe Batista in this way. Changing such reality is not the mission or job of Wikipedia. -(2)- The U.S. was the only nation with the ability, power, and geographic proximity to put an embargo on Batista, and this came as his regime was on the verge of collapse in 1958 - thus that is irrelevant. -(3)- Of course the U.S. recognized the Castro regime; they had hoped he would be a U.S. ally and preserve the previous business relationships on the island. When he didn't, they became enemies. Thus yes Fidel was "U.S.-backed" for all of a few months after 1959. -(4)- Batista on the other hand had U.S. support for nearly 16 of the 17 years he was in power. -(5)- Britannica is a reliable source (one which you have tried to ironically challenge on the Batista & Fidel Castro articles themselves) but utilize now out of convenience. Your behavior is extremely transparent and inconsistent. The Britannica article you cite describes Batista as a: "Cuban dictator" who was "jailing his opponents, using terrorist methods, and making fortunes for himself and his associates" while also describing him again as a "brutal dictator”, who was “controlling the university, the press, and the Congress” while he “embezzled huge sums from the soaring economy." However you censored nearly all of this from the Batista article recently and (with the lack of ref’s as your pretext) - rewrote it in a near Orwellian manner. Yes Britannica does not address U.S. support, but they also don't deny it. Luckily (and I guess unfortunately for you) we have the other 95 % of sources which address the issue to call on - which back the current version. -(6)- You can continually claim that I always personally attack you and not your actions, but just like your often innacurate & biased advocacy, it will not make it true.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

The editor Redthoreau has repeatedly deleted citation needed tags from the article. Among other things, the lead claims that Mr. Guevara thought "economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution." Yet the entire article has no reference to "neocolonialism" where this could be checked, nor is "world revolution" mentioned anywhere in the article. The same editor seems to be fond of using terms such as "prolific writer" and deleting any references to Mr. Guevara's thoughts regarding the overall success of his Bolivian mission.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis, per WP:LEADCITE:

::"The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

Now why is this relevant? (1) Your Wp:tendentious practice of sprinkling citation needed tags throughout leads is nearly always in reference to easily verifiable material (by this I mean in the majority of sources, which unfortunately you seem not to put much weight in). (2) The phrase you mention at one time had ref links after each word (i.e. "Monopoly Capitalism", "Neocolonialism", "Imperialism", "World Revolution") however there was editor Wp:consensus nearly a year or two back not to have so many ref links in the lead per Wp:Mos. I can easily ref each of these words, and it looks like I will unfortunately have to in order to play your continuing game of "tag to annoy those you edit war with". (3) Notice how the policy uses the word "likely to be challenged", the reason why this phrase does not include a ref link after each word, is that for over 2 years it has never been challenged by any of the thousands (400,000 per month) readers of the article - as anyone with even an elementary background knowledge of Che Guevara and his philosophy, will instantly recognize that these "isms" were the "ills" that he believed plagued those societies in which he wished to spark revolution. (4) Note the words "editorial consensus", this is something I have yet to EVER witness you seek out in all of your pov-laden edits. You and you solely would like this phrase and others to be referenced (which I am glad to do), but please do not act as if you have followed proper wiki protocol in requesting such sources. You seem to work backwards (overtag, and then use the talk page to complain about the removal of the tag) - when the proper order should be (inquire on the talk page about the source for the material and then if consensus is to tag, then do so). You also have not used the article talk page to provide rationale for your desired insertion of disputed material (i.e. "no local support"). (5) Lastly, my only "agenda" as you say, is to follow wiki policy, and ensure that your Wp:Soapbox solo pov-pushing of anti-Castro/Che/Cuban govt material - bordering on mere WP:SPA advocacy and not encyclopedia building (I'll let other editors view your editing history for themselves) be slowed down for the sake, quality, and neutrality of this overall project.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior seems to be attacking other editors instead of addressing the issue. The article has not a single mention of "neocolonialism" outside the lead. That was just my observation, and you did not even attempt to deny it.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, I have more than addressed the issue and since complied with your initial request of sourcing the statement. The current given source states (in the words of Che Guevara):

::::"The struggle for liberation from a foreign oppressor; the misery caused by external events such as war, whose consequences privileged classes place on the backs of the exploited; liberation movements aimed at overthrowing neo-colonial regimes — these are the usual factors in unleashing this kind of explosion."

Since the statement is addressing Guevara's own personal conclusion, this more than suffices.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As of current revision, you have not addressed the issue, although you finally added at least some source. Anyone can search for "colonialism" in the revision and find out that it's only mentioned in the lead. The source you finally added does not claim that "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution". So far the claim is your original research and Wikipedia does not publish original research. If you have a source for it, you should add it to the article. If you don't have a source, personal attacks won't solve the issue.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, the source does not need to claim this phrase verbatim; however the encapsulated idea is contained within this source (along with many others). Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Che Guevara would recognize the evident accuracy of the aforementioned statement. Moreover, the given source has an array of mentions of "Capitalism" + Guevara stating how in his view "monopoly capitalists" pervert the law of value. There are also several mentions of "imperialism" (although in theory I could utilize any number of essays by Che on this subject if you prefer). Challenging this statement would be as absurd as someone questioning whether Martin Luther King Jr. ever spoke out about "racism". Nearly every speech by Guevara post 1959 deals heavily with what he deemed were the negative outcomes of "monopoly capitalism", "neo-colonialism" (+ colonialism really), and "imperialism" (the subject he probably railed against more than any other). I have plenty of sources, and would be happy to list personal quotes by Guevara dealing with these issues upon your good faith request. I can provide further documentation here on the TP if you would like to challenge the undue weight or accuracy of these remarks with your own referenced & reliable material. Right now however, it is 95 % of the material on Che versus your unqualified & unverified opinion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a major problem with WP:V. The claim that "His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution" is your interpretation of Guavara's letter. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Luis Napoles (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, I have cited each word to its own article, that contains a clear phrase pointing out each of these issues. My edits are based solely on the words of Guevara himself, not my own original research as you claim. Actually reading the material is not "original" it is merely research and referencing.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed verifications

• In Anderson p. 95-96 there is nothing about how Che was transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed. There is only a general Che's statement about how "vagabonding though our America" has changed him. Even if Che somewhere said something in the context of witnessed poverty such statement should be attributed to him, and not stated as a fact.
• Anderson on p. 398 talks about events after Fidel became prime minister, not about Che's views after his trip throughout Latin America. -- Vision Thing -- 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, Anderson pg 95-96 certainly was citing the "transformed" portion of the sentence in Guevara's post trip remarks that "The person who wrote these notes died upon stepping once again onto Argentina soil, he who edits and polishes them, ‘I’ am not I, at least I am not the same I as before. That vagabonding through our 'America' has changed me more than I thought." However, to understand the context of that remark one would need to read the preceding chapter from pgs 71-95 on his trip in order to understand the encapsulating sentiment and take note of the numerous encounters with poverty and the effect it had on him personally. Nevertheless, I went ahead and utilized his August 19, 1960 speech to the Cuban Militia --> Ernesto Che Guevara: On Revolutionary Medicine - where Guevara outlines specifically the effect that traveling and viewing poverty had on him ... i.e. "I came into close contact with poverty, hunger and disease; with the inability to treat a child because of lack of money; with the stupefaction provoked by the continual hunger and punishment, to the point that a father can accept the loss of a son as an unimportant accident, as occurs often in the downtrodden classes of our American homeland" etc --- per the second instance you mention I have utilized the same 1960 speech by Guevara where he speaks of the Arbenz coup at the behest of the United Fruit Co, where he "realized a fundamental thing: For one to be a revolutionary doctor or to be a revolutionary at all, there must first be a revolution (continued) ..." --- This very common information you wish to have cited is in an array (nearly all) of sources on Guevara, so I am not exactly sure how precise of wording you are looking for, but I do believe these passages achieve a near verbatim idea. If you are pleased with these citations let me know, as it is important to me that you are confident in the sourcing and accuracy. I can certainly look up more if you wish and have nearly every Guevara related text at my disposal. Thanks, and nice to meet you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you right. If he said "endemic", it should be inside quotes, if he did not, it should not be there.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, I would strongly disagree. Guevara personally using the term "endemic" is not the only threshold wherein the term could be utilized. The wiki article is not entirely a collection of verbatim quoted statements. Most of the time the editor needs to summarize (WP:Summary) the information for the reader. In the given source, Guevara does not specifically use the word "endemic" (defined as - "Prevalent in a particular area or region"), but what does he describe? The answer to that would be = "subjugated continents" where "the downtrodden classes" and "authentic offspring of hunger and misery" suffer under "adverse governments and social conditions which prevent progress" along with "privations in childhood" and "hunger". Guevara then decrees in the same given source that "monopolies" and "creatures of malnutrition" need to be "overthrown" so that the "entire social collectivity" can experience "profound social change" in "the mental structure of the people" on top of the "ruins of a decayed system" where Guevara wants man to "build the new system which will bring about the absolute happiness of the people". --- Now in the spirit of expediency, "endemic" acts as descriptive term, for capturing Guevara's prevailing personal sentiment, as the latter would be to long for the lead.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be inside quotes or use word like "perceive" instead of "witness". It's a claim about Guevara's opinions.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, of course it is a personal claim by Guevara (but also backed up by biographers). Who would be a better authority on the "opinion" of the effect of traveling through South America on Che Guevara - than Che Guevara himself? Are you also claiming that there was not actual poverty in South America that Che encountered on his 2 trips and almost 2 years traversing nearly every nation in Latin America - which included leper colonies, barrios, mines, rafting the amazon, and traveling the majority of the time on trucks with as Anderson puts it on [pg 80] "Indians with their filthy ponchos, their lice, their unwashed stench". Have you read The Motorcycle Diaries? Or the account of his second journey a year later? Furthermore, [pg 63] of Anderson's biography notes: "The injustice of the lives of the socially marginalized people he had befriended along his journey - lepers, hobos, detainees, hospital patients - bore witness to the submerged turbulence of the region". I am not exactly sure what your problem with the wording is, other than the obvious fact that you detest anything that provides a background and context to Guevara's eventual radicalization.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Campesinos"

Resolved

"Guevara has been sanctified by some Bolivian campesinos as "Saint Ernesto", to whom they pray for assistance".[1] Nothing about campesinos. Luis Napoles (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, your Wp:TENDentious practice of making a Wp:Point is becoming tiresome, but I will not let you aggravate me as you have many others. I will insert an additional article for the "campesino" claim solely. As I am sure you are aware, "campesino" is the Spanish term for "peasant" which is used in this new link many times.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It did not come as a surprise that regard verifiability as "tendetious" and "tiresome".Luis Napoles (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research in Bolivia section ?

The claim that "Guevara's plan for fomenting revolution in Bolivia failed, apparently because it was based on three primary misconceptions:" is Redthoreau's original research, he picked two different claims from one source each (and one unreferenced claim) and made up the theory. He now deleted what Latin American scholar Thomas C. Wright directly said about Bolivia ([2]).Luis Napoles (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, for your information and clarification, I never inserted the "three misconceptions" theory. That was part of the article before I ever began editing it. Thus it is not my original research. Furthermore, I did not delete what Wright said. I tried to move his main claim “no recruitment” to the appropriate place so it would make since in the paragraph and even correctly formatted the source for you (as for the language issue that is already mentioned below). Now all the "not a single" claim needs is a page #. Something you have yet to provide despite my request.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

20,000 Deaths Under Batista?

The figure of 20,000 deaths under Batista seems exaggerated. This website "http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat7.htm#Cuba52" lists several sources, and there seems to be a consensus among the non-partisan ones that 5000 people died on both sides during the civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.121.228 (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, Castro himself accused Batista of only some hundreds of deaths and the official number published after Castro's victory was 898 (more than half of them guerillas). The "20,000" was invented later. Luis Napoles (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

IP 88, first off your "source" (I use this term very loosely) is a self published Wp:SPS personal blog/website by a non-notable individual (Matthew White) where he asks for monetary donations. This site is essentially not much different from a credibility standpoint than a Myspace page or even a user page here on Wikipedia. Per Wp:Reliable, this is not a legitimate source for any claim. Nevertheless, in regards to your statement ... this 'site' (which even acknowledges the 20,000 number was supported in Newsweek Magazine) seems to be addressing the "Civil War" from 1958-1959 and thus 5,000 deaths - whereas the cited 20,000 killed in the article under Batista (sourced to a 2007 Che biography by German historian & author Frank Niess), is presumably the given number of people killed by his regime collectively during his last 7 years in office (1952-1959). Moreover, per Wp:Verify, the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs in 1959 (as pointed out in their 'Current Notes on International Affairs'‎ - Page 261) stated that = "Batista had, particularly in the latter part of his term of office, ruled by terror" ... where "as many as 20,000 Cubans had met violent deaths". If you don't prefer an Australian point of view, you could use the 1959 United States Senate Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws by the Committee on the Judiciary (digitized online), which noted that = "Batista in Cuba was regarded as the butcher of some 20,000 or 25,000 of its finest youth." This matches the belief 10 years later by the 1969 United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence which published a report entitled: 'Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives: A Report' - where on Page 582 it states that = "It is clear that counterterror became the strategy of the Batista government ... It has been estimated by some that as many as 20,000 civilians were killed."   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, that would be incorrect. [1], you are referring to the death total during the 1956-1959 war against the guerrillas - whereas the 20,000 total is in reference to those Cuban citizens killed during Batista's reign from 1952-1959 - the vast majority of whom were not part of any armed resistance under Castro (or even Communist sympathizers), but merely individuals who objected to Batista's dictatorial rule during that time and who fell victim to those employed as part of Batista's internal security apparatus (i.e. BRAC etc). [2] "Invented" I guess is in the eye of the beholder. As I am sure you are aware, many historical events have a death count that is altered over time as more information comes about. However, this 20,000 total has remained consistent in the majority (see Wp:Undue) of sources (not all) from 1959 to the presently cited 2007 biography.

Some published examples of this include:

Bolivia, Press and Revolution 1932-1964‎ - Page 347 .... "Batista had been responsible for perhaps as many as 20,000 deaths"

The Free World Colossus: a Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War‎ - Page 192 - (by current day Conservative and Castro-critic David Horowitz) .... "the 20,000 Cubans who had been killed by the Batista regime"

World Guide: A View from the South‎ - Page 209 - .... "Batista engineered yet another coup, establishing a dictatorial regime which was responsible for the death of 20,000 Cubans"

The Third World in Perspective‎ - Page 344 .... "under Batista at least 20,000 people were put to death"

Invisible Latin America‎ - Page 77 .... "All told, Batista's second dictatorship cost the Cuban people some 20,000 dead"

Conflict, Order, and Peace in the Americas‎ - Page 121 (by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, hardly a bastion of Marxism) .... "The US-supported Batista regime killed 20,000 Cubans"

Controversy Over Cuba‎ - Page 3 (by the D.C. Committee on National Legislation, hardly Pravda) .... "Some l9,000 to 20,000 Cubans were murdered during Batista’s regime, some were tortured, others bled to death after being castrated"

Then again as author Abbott Joseph Liebling notes in his 1981 book The Press‎ - Page 267: "On the international scene, the 20,000 shootings by Batista got considerably less space than the 700 by Castro"

Lastly Luis, I know from our previous edit conflicts on other articles that you believe Youtube to be a reliable reference for material (although I on principle do not) – thus I would point you to ---> this short clip from the documentary Fidel: The Untold Story and the section of the clip from [1:03-1:09] right after testimony by Wayne Smith (former head of the United States Interests Section in Havana). Note the figure given and terminology used.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, Youtube is not a reliable source and unlike your attack attempts to claim, I have never said anything like that.

You are picking sources which do not study the history, but rely on the figures which were invented in the 1960s.

Here are some papers that studied the subject:

Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart : American Policy Failures in Cuba (1968): "total deaths ... not more than 900 on both [sides]".

Hugh Thomas, Cuba, or, the pursuit of freedom (1971, 1988): 1,500-2,000 deaths as a direct consequence of the political crisis, 1952-58, including war.

Gilbert: 2,000 deaths in 6 years of war and punitive actions.

Exploring revolution by Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, page 63: a thousand

Miguel A. Farria: "Despite the atrocities committed by the Batista regime, no more than 1,000 to 2,000 deaths can be reliably attributed directly to his regime."

Fidel Castro himself talked about a thousand deaths, before the 20,000 was invented. (Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley)

These papers explicity studies how many died, instead of just stating Castro's 20,000 figure at face value.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis, -[1]- It is curious that you now don't support Youtube when you previously ---> cited Youtube at Civil disobedience (another article you have badly edit-warred on and slanted with your bias) as a legitimate reference for a claim regarding one of your pet advocacy projects - Yo No Coopero Con La Dictadura. Both User:MarshalN20 & User:Likeminas has had to remove your insertion of youtube from this article. -[2]- The figures you are citing appear in some cases to be in relation to the civil war between Batista and anti-Batista forces (predominately from 1957-1959 during the period of guerrilla armed conflict). Not in reference to the 7 year period of 1952-1959, in which Batista’s regime is reported in the majority of sources to have murdered 20,000 Cubans. Although, as with any historical regime the death totals differ (Mao can be anywhere from 5-70 million, Stalin 2-20 million etc), the most commonly accepted number for Batista is 20,000, which is our threshold for inclusion. -[3]- You seem not to understand that Wikipedia is for regurgitation, not creation. For example, if you were hypothetically able to successfully plant a lie in 80 % of the news media, published academic literature, and peer reviewed sources ... then wikipedia would echo your lie irregardless if it were actually true. We are not here to determine historical validity (that would be Wp:OR), we are here to rely on the research of others - hence if they are 'duped' by "invented" facts as you put it, then we still report the invented evidence until the majority of reliable sources correct the record and retract the formerly accepted facts. -[4]- Additionally, your sources are not "papers", they are books just as mine are. Are there sources which report a death total of 2,000 instead of 20,000? sure. But per Wp:Undue, the question becomes - what do the majority of them state? I believe the answer to that is 20,000 casualties and you have yet to provide ample evidence to call the above 20,000 citations into question or display that it is not the commonly reported figure.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia have a rule requiring that only the majority opinion shall be referenced in articles? If there are reliable sources with contrarian conclusions, it is perfectly acceptable to include these in Wikipedia provided that language be used to qualify the fact that they are in fact not in line with the status quo. -- itistoday (Talk) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Full Name of Ernesto Guevara

Resolved

I haven't looked up a source for his full name, but isn't his full name (which I haven't seen at the start of the article where it should say) Erneste Rafael "Che" Guevara de La Serna? (I know it's long - and picky - but I felt it should be included) Yours sincerely - Phanax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.26.215 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Phanax (ip 85), although several sources identify Guevara with both his Mother's surname "de la Serna" and his Father's surname "Lynch", his legal name was solely Ernesto Guevara. This matter has been discussed previously here ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 17#Wrong name with a provided document showing his legal name.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:Naming conventions (people) focusses on the most common name, not the legal name. Although it may not be explicit in WP:LEAD, I believe that the first sentence of Wikipedia articles often mentions several names for things when there is more than one commonly-used name; for example, see People's Republic of China, which mentions "China" as an alternative in the first sentence. I conditionally support including "de la Serna" in the first sentence somehow: either as it currently is, or some variant such as "Ernesto Guevara, "Che", or Ernesto Guevara de la Serna". I don't think "Che" is his legal name, but it's there; how can it be included, yet exclude "de la Serna" on the grounds that it isn't a legal name? I don't know how many sources use the "de la Serna" name. If not many, then perhaps it doesn't belong in the first sentence. It could be mentioned later in the article that he was sometimes identified with his mother's name, or not mentioned at all if it's not sufficiently prominent in the sources. Note the objection I raised in the discussion linked to be Redthoreau, based on the mention of the name "Serna" in connection with a soccer nickname. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I can see the value of both sides on this issue. For instance biographer Jon Lee Anderson introduces him as "Ernesto Guevara de la Serna" in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. However, in other Che biographies it is noted that Che in adolescence would refer to himself as "Ernesto Guevara Lynch" (his father's surname). At one time the article here led with Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch (both parents’ surnames) but that was then revised when the editor of the Spanish language article provided us with a copy of his birth certificate showing solely "Ernesto Guevara". I think the best option would probably to use Ernesto 'Che' Guevara" or merely "Ernesto Guevara" to begin the article. Currently it lists the names of "de la Serna" and "Lynch" in the beginning of the first section, but possibly a sentence could be added noting that because of this his name has been juxtapositioned with both surnames? What do you and others think?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The "butcher of la cabana"

Resolved

There needs to be a mention of the title he has gained by some as "the butcher of la cabana". Faro0485 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Faro0485, please read more carefully or utilize the (Ctrl + F) option to do a key word search in the article. Had you done so you would have seen that this in fact is mentioned in the article presently. It states in the relevant 'Legacy' section: "Guevara remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as 'the butcher of La Cabaña'."   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did do a search, it didn't come up. Faro0485 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Faro0485, it comes up if you use the correct n = ñ, or you can simply type in the word "butcher".   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he was asking it to be more prominent (in the title or intro) as a large subpopulation of Cuba views him in that way. Certainly it doesn't belong in the title, but perhaps more in the intro instead of buried half way through the article.Gtadoc (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gtadoc, the wording Faro used was "a mention", not a more prominent one (+ it would probably be best to let him/her speak for themselves). Moreover, it would be Wp:Undue to begin the article with the term, as 95 % of all biographies of the subject don't even include any mention of this epithet. You would be hard pressed to find any Wikipedia article about a polarizing political figure that opens up with the chosen moniker of his or her ideological foes. However, it has tangential relevance to his current legacy among a subsection of the population and is thus mentioned in that appropriate section.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Redthroreau Actually, critical information is in the intro in many wiki articles; while I don't claim that "butcher" would be best in the intro, it does read a bit flowery. And since you are wikiquoting, here is one for you: [[3]]. Gtadoc (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gtadoc, of course "critical information" can be acceptable in many circumstances. In the current intro for instance it states that Guevara was a "ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors" - which is noted in the major biographies. However, (as a random example) I wonder what response an editor would get if they opened up a thread on the George W. Bush talk page and questioned why it wasn't mentioned that many people refer to him as a "war criminal" (especially if it actually did later in the article, which it doesn't), as well as a host of other epithets that would of course be unacceptable for a Wiki intro? Moreover, you can also propose additional negative information with sources so that they can be judged against the overall weight of the cumulative material. As for your "flowery" assessment, the article is supposed to reflect the majority of scholarly and published sources, which in this case you would probably describe as "flowery". Our task here is to reflect that reality, not to “correct” or “revise” it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening length

Resolved

I could be wrong, but the opening seems to me to be too long. The third paragraph, in particular, would not be hurt by some trimming. Thoughts? - Waidawut (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Waidawut, nice to meet you. The Wp:lead has the recommended number of paragraphs (4), however I would agree with your contention that the 3rd paragraph could be shortened somewhat. The problem I believe is that as time goes on, editors insert a notable moment of Guevara's life (which involved an array of historically significant moments) to the third paragraph which is sort of the de-facto "career" paragraph in the lead. I can propose a shortened version of paragraph 3 for you here if you would like, to see if we can reach agreement on a sensible way to summarize its content. Just let me know.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As Redthoreau noted, length of the lead is in line with WP:Lead. However, paragraphs are of very unequal length so that is prehaps something that might be addressed with little reorganization. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done my best to tighten up the wording of the lead. I believe it reads much clearer now and is more precise. Waidawut if you disagree, let me know.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition about detailed bullet wounds

Resolved

I don't think this recent addition [4] detailing the locations of the bullets in Che's body is particularly relevant. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, I would agree with your contention. Although the description is factually accurate, and was added in good faith, I feel it is unnecessarily precise - especially considering that the sentence which precedes it - explains nearly the exact same wounds in 1/3 of the space. I will thusly remove the passage, but please if anyone objects then revert me, and we can further discuss the matter here.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "would"

Resolved

I have been removing some instances of the word "would" which i find to be out of style and poor prose for an encyclopedia. Basically there are three contexts in which would is appropriate: 1. a prediction about a future event while describing it from a past viewpoint "later that day he would go down to the river". 2. an expressing of will "he would nolonger stand it" and 3. expression of habitual actions in the past "every sunday he would take out his pipe". Therefore a usage where "would" is simply used to describe an event in the past should be avoided. e.g. "During his visit to Limerick Che would celebrate St. Patrick's day" this suggest that he wanted or were scheduled to but didn't. Since he actually did celebrate St. PAtricks day in Limerick "During his visit in Limerick Che celebrated St. Patrick's day" is better and more straight forward.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose removing it, and likely it was over-used, but it can be appropriate. It indicates a past future tense, i.e. that at that time in the past, the action was going to be in the future. It can be used when briefly mentioning a later event in the middle of recounting a series of past events. It signals to the reader not to let their imagination stray completely to the later time, (only to have to jump disruptively back into the past again in the next sentence or clause), but to retain the link to the past time that was being described. Example: "He opened the fridge, put in the meal which his son would later eat for dinner, closed the fridge again, turned to the other person and spoke." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly I have left it where it correctly indicated a past future tense, a will/intention or a habit. I have only rmoved the places where it was used instead of ordinary past tense.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding lack of inquiries or trials

Hey. Thanks for taking part in this discussion to see if consensus has changed. My issue with this article is the apparent lack of critical reporting of the subject. Through my own college education, I've learned that Guevara was a controversial figure, often either a recipient of positive propaganda or a victim of negative propaganda. This article barely touches on it, other than to say he was controversial (at the bottom of the article), which may give readers the impression that he was either infallible or universally accepted (except, of course, to those he was directly in opposition with). History is still very undecided as to whether he was a true revolutionary or someone who latched on to a movement that promised him authority and/or notoriety. The source material I included indicated that his execution victims rarely saw inquiries, much less trials, and were often executed for the mere appearance of impropriety, or lack of confidence, by Guevara or his seniors. The article is clear this occurred during his Cuban period, so I felt it most relevant to put the statement in there. As I intend to start developing some of the counter-balancing facts that are only suggested at in the article's current conclusion, I thought this was a good way to unbiasly (<--is that a word?) introduce aspects of his historical character that are not yet represented in the article. I'd like to see what the consensus is, so, while I look forward to your POV, I'd prefer we wait and remove my statement only after we've given others some time to weigh in here with a consensus that this knowledge is not relevant in the article about Guevara. Your consideration on this matter is appreciated. Thank you. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been involved in editing this page. I saw this edit and at first glance it looks fine to me, but I haven't had time yet to look at sources or read the previous discussion. Please discuss and get consensus rather than repeatedly reverting. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

LeyteWolfer, as the editor who reverted your initial addition, I wanted to explain my reasoning. At the outset let me say that I do not dispute the accuracy of the statement "often without trial", my sole reasoning for the revert was the sourcing which is to a Sunday Times online article, about a recent book written in French entitled "The Hidden Face of Che" by author Jacobo Machover (a Cuban exiled in France since 1963). The aforementioned article describes this book as a "revisionist biography", and a search in the peer reviewed literature does not turn up any reviews of the text (unlike for say the 3 major biographies on Guevara by Anderson, Taibo II, and Castañeda). I believe that the sentence would carry more weight and credibility if it were referenced to one of these biographies, which describe many of the same summary executions in detail. For instance Anderson describes the execution of Eutimio Guerra in detail on pages (237-238). A further point of interest is the phrase "trial", considering that many times - like with the case of a man named 'Lalo' (Anderson pg 282-283) summary "trials" were held in the Sierra Maestra to determine one's fate - in the aforementioned instance Che argued that the man should be spared. Other such hasty "trials" during the guerrilla campaign are described by Anderson on pages (195, 285, 326, and 371). However, since the phrase uses the term "often" and not "always", I believe it could stand as accurate. LeyteWolfer and others, what would be your opinion of referencing this statement to one of the 3 definitive and peer-reviewed biographies, instead of an article about a little known book in French, that I believe no one editing this article has read ? (My French is ok/sub-standard, but this book also seems difficult to obtain or locate online).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course - the better the sources - the better the article. Please go ahead and add the Anderson source for the claim (removing the sunday times source is probably a good idea)·Maunus·ƛ· 19:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You should be aware that the article is curretly being reviewed as a GA at this location:Talk:Che Guevara/GA1 - for the review to succeed the article needs to be more or less stable (this article will of course always attract conflicting opinions). I do not think that there are curently any serious POV problems with the article - in fact I have lauded it for theneutral and matter of factish style in which it is written at the talk page. The article describes Che's life and his actions without trying to secondguess or judge them them. Value judgements does not belong in the body of a biograpjy article -except for when describing the reception or legacy of those facts by the public, and I think the article does so very well. I also believe that Leytewolfe is incorrect suggesting that history is undecided as to whether Che was a "true revolutionary" - I have not encountered this viewpoint as more than the odd mention by an anti-communist spokesperson. I think there is a pretty wide consensus that Che was a bonafide revolutioanry spirit - the conflict, as I understand it, is whether being a true revolutionary is an admirable or a detestable quality. Having begun the review of the article I think it does very well in maintaingn a balanced view between these two extremes, in that it mentions both the laudable humanitarian actions of Che as well as his actions as an icecold ideological warrior - without judging those actions. I have no objection to the addition of "often without trials" - this seems to have clearly been the case (as it would be in most cases of warfare). Also please note that the only two sections to specifically mention the admired/detested dichotomy is the Lead and legacy sections - this is exactly as it should be, the body of the article should be dedicated to facts sourced to reliable sources presented without judgement. The judgement by others of his actions as good or evil all pertain to his legacy and should be confined to that section. If there are facts that you believe should be incorporated I suggest that you present them here on the talk page before introducing them directly into the article - this will make it easier to judge whether the consensus is that the article is sufficiently neutral as is or whether it could still be improved in that respect - and consequently it will be easier for me to conduct the review. i think it would be a shame to have to fail the article only on the stability criteria. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As we all know, Che was (and still is) a controversial figure. Having said that, when I first read this article, I was surprised to see that it lacked any criticism and/or controversy section. I’ve read the archive relating to this issue, and I cannot see why the phrase often without trials should not be included. As far as I know, the threshold for inclusion is reliable sourcing; and the edit seems to comply well with that requirement. Likeminas (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the wording "often summarily" instead of "often without trials", since that leaves open the possibility of some sort of summary trial. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that would work as well Coppertwig.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Sections named simply "controversy" or "criticism" are not generally encouraged. It is preferred to have, as in this case, a section with "legacy" or "reception" to include conflicting viewpoints. As stated above bare facts like "often without trials" may of cours be included if they are well sourced and deemed to be relevant by a consensus. I have no objection to the inclusion of this phrase - but I think the matter of the proposed RfC is slightly broader issue of perceived imbalance by Leytewolfer. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that controversy or criticism sections are not encouraged. Is there are a guideline or policy supporting that? I ask because it seems like biographies of other (living and dead) controversial figures such as Fidel Castro, Noam Chomsky and Milton Friedman all have a criticism sections. Likeminas (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

iT is not prohibited but WP:NPOV#Article structure states "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[6] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can sometimes result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other." I think the current article is a fine example of integration of both viewpoints into the main narrative rather than segregating them into a controversy section. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Maunus’ analysis and add for Likeminas that a "Criticism" section was scrapped long ago during the FA process under the premise that Maunus alludes to. Since a "criticism" section would ultimately need a "praise" section per WP:Undue and WP:NPOV - "Legacy" is much more befitting and inclusive of both sides of the coin.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you guys are correct, then, you've found a major problem with Wikipedia since featured articles such as the ones for Albert Speer, Roe v. Wade and Søren Kierkegaard all have Criticism or Controversy sections.

By the way, my edits on any article can certainly be moved or modified but I would really appreciate it if my edits to this talk page stay as I leave them.

Likeminas (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is a major problem - it is basically a question of what to name the section where differing viewpoints about the meaning, importance or legacy of the articles topic is contained - not that important in my opinion. As Redthoreau says the legacy section of this article is basically a combined praise and criticism section under a less conspicuous name. I have moved around your signature a little bit because your habit of placing it to lines under your comment caused me to accidentally post my comment between your comment and your signature. I did not mean to change the letter of your contribution, i apologize if I inadvertently did so. However if you sign at the end of the comment it self as is customary the threads will be easier to follow.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas, a few thoughts related to your post. -[1]- Per Roe v Wade, comparing an individual to an event is probably not entirely analogous. As for Speer (-1 per Godwin's Law jk) his section first begins with the word "Legacy". Moreover, we would need to know the condition of the particular article at the point in which it was granted featured status, not the present condition of the article - while it would also be important to know at which point an article was granted FA status, as wiki protocol is an ever evolving process as we go along. Lastly, remember that each article exists on its own, and it often is not enough to point to the layout of another article (which may be wrong) to justify the layout of an article in question. Additionally, there are endless variables to consider per your minor example of 3 articles such as the overall Wp:Weight of FA's - do most of them have "criticism" sections, or are these outliers? -[2]- Per your agitation at having your posts adjusted for spacing, I would point toward WP:Talk which allows for = "page formatting", "moving a comment", "adding a header", and "creating subsections if helpful". Moreover, if your comment was in reference to me placing a subsection, or condensing your comment into a paragraph instead of the random line breaks and indentations for your signature or a new sentence: -[a]- I would first apologize for any offense caused (and add that I would certainly never alter any of your actual words), -[b]- make it known that I will refrain from doing this in the future as I now know you don't like it, and -[c]- politely ask that you consider maybe following the usual practice of placing your signature right after your comment, instead of on a new indented line (as is usual MOS). --- Let me add as well Likeminas, that I hope this does not come off as adversarial, as I have found my previous work with you to be fruitful and rewarding and believe that you are a productive member of the overall Wiki project.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a searchable archive box for the talk page archives

Resolved

Can an editor who is good with how these work - please place one on the talk page here? Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Vision Thing.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Statements from The Motorcycle Diaries

Alleged racism, antisemetism and homophobia quotes from The Motorcycle Diaries:

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."

"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."

"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."

"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort."

Isn't this something we should possibly bring attention to? Jacob Richardson (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. If a published source points to such quotes as example of racism, we may be able to use that information (if due weight applies). If we search out such quotes ourselves, perhaps not. Do we know that he was more racist than others at the time where he lived? Do any scholarly biographies (e.g. ones with lots of footnotes, etc.) mention this sort of thing? Also, wasn't he relatively young when he wrote Motorcycle Diaries? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I assumed and thought the same thing. I still believe it should be brought attention to, based upon the fact it has be used as criticism in order to defame Che by his detractors. Still withstanding their refutations. Jacob Richardson (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:NOR. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We can only use it if it can be sourced to a secondary source. If it has been used by detractors it can be used by sourcing it to some publication written by them.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up in past archives but it might be helpful to bring the matter up again now that more editors are involved. First to the "RACISM" allegation. -(Q1)- Did Che ever write such a statement? -(Q2)- Was Che thus racist against blacks? I will address both of them to the best of my ability and encourage others to weigh in as well if they have further insight.

-(Q1)- First, yes a 24 year old Che did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952, during his continental trip which would later be entitled and encompassed in his 150 + page memoir The Motorcycle Diaries. The full context of this statement is addressed by biographer Jon Lee Anderson on [page 92] of "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life." According to Anderson, Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado had just arrived in the city of Caracas, Venezuela, which at this time was "swollen with migrants" as a result of the nation’s oil boom. As a result the hillsides were draped with "squalid worker slums" comprised of a mostly Afro-Hispanic (black) population. Anderson goes on to state how Guevara up to that point, except for a few brief instances in his life, had never "been around black people" (which were a rarity in his native Argentina) especially for someone of Che’s economic & social class. On this occasion Guevara after meandering through a local "barrio" (slum) made a written "observation" that Anderson states was "reflective" of the "arrogance and condescension" of a "stereotypical white Argentinean." The full diary passage that Anderson includes is as follows:

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations."

A few things of importance in reference to this observational passage. (A) Inclusion of this "observation" would be more applicable to the article The Motorcycle Diaries (if anywhere). (B) Anderson notes two pages later [pg 94] how after visiting the U.S. for a brief time (30 days in Miami), directly after he made this observation, Guevara complained to friends about "white discrimination against blacks" that he witnessed. Thus it is somewhat unclear how Guevara viewed blacks in relation to equality of treatment, although yes he made a statement that I would personally deem offensive months earlier. (C) At the end of Guevara’s journey 3 months later, he states that he "is not the man he once was" and declares himself a transformed individual. Thus it is not clear if Guevara’s views on blacks were altered in that short amount of time based on his trip or how much longer he continued to hold this "observation" on blacks.

What is known about the later revolutionary Che Guevara, which I believe addresses question -(Q2)- are the following points. In reference to "was Che racist against blacks?" – it would obviously depend on what time in his life you are speaking in reference to. Up until age 24, one might be able to state that indeed he was, although his biographers do not expressively do so. What we do know about his later life once he became "El Che" 4 years later is the following. (1) Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the United States. (2) Che's friend and personal bodyguard shown here (who accompanied him at all times after 1959) was Harry "Pombo" Villegas, who was Afro-Cuban (black). Pombo accompanied Che to the Congo and to Bolivia, where he survived and now lives in Cuba. Of note, Pombo speaks glowingly of Guevara to this day shown here. (3) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964 (as the article notes), he spoke out in favor of black musician Paul Robeson, in support of slain black leader Patrice Lumumba (who he heralded as one of his heroes), against white segregation in the Southern U.S. (which still unfortunately existed), and against the white South African apartheid regime (long before it became the Western 'cause de jour'). (4) Che was also heralded by Malcolm X during this trip to NY and in contact with his associates to whom he sent a letter, and later praised by Nelson Mandela as the article currently mentions. (5) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of mostly all Afro-Cubans (blacks) shown here including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. This resembled the fight in Cuba, where Che's units were also made up of mostly mulattos and blacks. (6) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique shown here & here, for their independence from the white South African apartheid regime.

Now despite all of these issues, could Che have still "been racist against blacks?" I guess so, but these actions (as his biographers note) especially in the 1960’s do not resemble a man with racist attitudes towards black people. Most biographers, claim that this unfortunate and offensive early "observation" by Guevara, represented his opinion as a young 24 year old venturing out amongst other races for the first time, and do not represent the man whom the world would later know as Che. Now is it worthy of inclusion in this article? I don’t believe so. However, it may be worthy of inclusion in The Motorcycle Diaries article, if presented in the appropriate context.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think redthoreau makes a good case that we Che was possibly slightly racist in his youth (which was btw much more commonplace at that time than it is now) but that he exchanged that for an activist antiracist stance later in life. I think it would be a benefit to the article if this change could be shown by including sourced statements about his viewpoints during the motorcycle journeys and his later actions and statements.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Jacob Richardson (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t believe that the question is whether or not this information should be in article, but rather how it should be included, as clearly it should be. A worthy example of how this information can be presented can be found in the article on Harry S. Truman.

CIA quote "fairly intellectual for a Latino"

On a side note, am I the only one who sees the double irony of this discussion in the fact that the following sentence is in the article immediately before the section on The Motorcycle Diaries? “Years later, a February 13, 1958, declassified CIA 'biographical and personality report' would make note of Guevara’s wide range of academic interests and intellect, describing him as ‘quite well read’ and offering the racist proclamation that ‘Che is fairly intellectual for a Latino.’” My apologies to all, but it did make me chuckle... Hammersbach (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersbach, as someone who enjoys irony I noted the same thing, although I really wouldn't compare the ruminations and diary entry of a 23 year old on a road trip to an official CIA report (which should have a much higher threshold of professionalism). I am not averse to inclusion of this material (as it is commonly parroted by detractors to incorrectly imply his lifelong racism), however I am still researching the quotes and context of the quotes on being "Jewish" and "homosexual" to see if he ever really addressed the matters in written form later in life. It is well known (and documented in biographies) for instance that Latin American "machismo" at the time, did not lend much sympathy for homosexuality - and that Guevara himself saw sleeping with women as a necessary precondition to "manhood". Per the "Jewish" issue, Anderson notes how Che was staunchly anti-Nazi as a youth growing up during the second World War, and that he even openly called out a pro-Nazi teacher in his high school in front of everyone – however it may take some more time to dig up how much Anti-Semitism was a part of Che’s anti-fascist beliefs via the Third Reich.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think the rather irrelevant detail about the CIA memo and certainly the POV "racism" remark should be removed.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, are you saying that you think the word "racist" should be removed from the sentence, or that the entire description of how the CIA described him should be removed? Of note, the CIA's remark is fairly notable as it was cited in the trailer for The Motorcycle Diaries and is the tagline for the book Che Guevara and the FBI which contains many of the declassified memos. Is it your belief that it is "irrelevant" how the CIA viewed one of their primary foes?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am arguing for either or. I don't think the memo adds anything important to the article in the context in which it is currently used. It possibly could be relevant if it was put into a context of describing how the CIA (who eventually contributed to che's death) viewed him, but it is not put into that context at present. The description of their memo as racist makes the quote look like a way to make the reader take a pro Che anti CIA viewpoint - if that was removed the quote would just look out of place, but not as implicit POV.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, I see what you are saying and would agree. I would concur with removing the term "racist" (although I feel that it is personally as I imagine you would) and possibly we could remove the quote altogether until I (or someone else) has time to create a paragraph on all the CIA memos from Che Guevara and the FBI a book that I have and that others can easily acquire if interested. Does that sound reasonable? If so, then please go ahead and remove it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me yes. However I am not going to remove it myself, lets see what the editors who originally voiced the concern say. I am also not going to fail the GA review for it if a consensus forms to keep it. I was just chipping in my opinion. I also don't think an entire section of FBI material is necessary to establish a context, it could simply be a paragraph about how the BI started paying specific attention to Che in ne of the other paragraphs in the history section. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that despite appearances, I did not add the title that splits the edit I made above and nor did I attempt to start this conversational thread. The sole purpose of my previous comment on the sentence in question was really just to point out an irony that I found rather humorous, nothing more. However, it seems I have been drawn a bit further into this discussion so, briefly, 1) I concur that the quote is out of place and a touch POV, 2) I wouldn’t spend too much time researching anti-homosexual issue. At that time in history champions of homosexual rights were few and far between so for anyone to now wag a disapproving finger at Che on that score is a bit unfair, and 3) I wouldn’t spend too much time researching the anti-nazi route either for two reasons; the first is that I believe it may be rather difficult to convince anyone that statements made in the 40s override statements made in the 50s for views that may or may not have been held in the 60s, and secondly, one can be staunchly anti-fascist and still be quite the anti-Semitic, (the Moustache being a fine example). Anyway, I am still of the opinion that the information should be presented, possibly in the same manner as similar information in the Harry S. Truman article. Hammersbach (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"GAN error" category ?

Resolved

At the bottom of the talk page here there is a red link category of "GAN error". Does anyone know what this is for and how to fix it?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone misspelled the topic parameter. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Viriditas.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mass executioner" label in lead

I need to bring this edit by AVM (talk · contribs) up for discussion before this escalates into an edit war. I believe putting "mass executioner" label on the lede section violates WP:NPOV, WP:Terrorist, and WP:UNDUE.  Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It definitely violates WP:UNDUE if it's placed within the lead. Please see entry on Encyclopedia Britannica to note what a balanced lead should look like[5]. I would also advice user AVM (talk · contribs) against possible WP:CIVIL violations on his edit summaries [6] Likeminas (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Nubiatech & Likeminas. AVM has already been reverted on this particular edit 3 times by 3 different editors. Setting aside the fact that AVM (Wp:SOAPBOX) is clearly not interested in the consensus of editors (evidenced by the fact that he/she would disregard the reverts of 3 different people) his/her WP:OR usage of the term "mass executioner" in the lead and as a "profession" violates WP:Undue & WP:NPOV (not to mention it is a hyperbolic term of opinion, not fact). It would be analogous to listing the euphemism "freedom fighter" in the first line, which you actually could source to a number of biographies, but would still be inappropriate from a pov standpoint. Moreover, AVM is trying to link the title of "executioner" to his/her recent edit where he/she unilaterally and without a source named Guevara as an official "executioner". AVM's declaration of "bullshit!" also doesn't do much in the realm of WP:Civility. Lastly, what is clear is that none of the scholarly journals, or major biographies refer to Guevara primarily in such a manner (which would be our threshold for inclusion).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary Response

Regarding the above very respectable commentary by the also very respectable editor Redthoreau, I feel I must affix this preliminary response, as for the upcoming weeks I won't be able to build a properly documented reply.

First. You say that I 'unilaterally and without a source named Guevara as an official "executioner".' Not true, I did supply a reference from a reliable source (Behind Che Guevara’s mask, the cold executioner Times Online (from The Sunday Times) September 16, 2007) that I later displaced downward. Yes, I am clearly not interested in the consensus of blatant leftist editors who regard Ernesto "Che" Guevara as their personal hero, or idol, or totem, who believe he should be thought of as an exemplary human being. If user Nubiatech feels offended by the word 'bullshit', I may also feel offended when he/she childishly calls 'POV' my qualification of mass executioner, which by the way is an historical fact, as many sources prove, and which should be familiar terrain to Redthoreau. With all due respect, when he states that "...none of the scholarly journals, or major biographies refer to Guevara primarily in such a manner", one wonders if he has gone through the immense mass of documentation available, for example, from Cuban exiles? The qualification to use should be mass murderer, which is what Guevara was, instead of the milder executioner. To display respect or deference toward an overt criminal is not only unjustifiable, it is plain hypocrisy.

Second, the WP:NPOV guideline states:

• "Balance
• Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.", etc.

Let's briefly examine what the lead section states about "El Che", to see if all viewpoints are represented:

• he was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, (sounds respectable enough, perhaps chic, even classy)
• (he was a) politician, (respectable enough)
• (he was an) author, (sounds very respectable)
• (he was a) physician, (very respectable indeed)
• (he was a) military theorist, (respectable enough)
• (he was a) guerrilla leader. (respectable for some)

It should be obvious that there is no balance at all in the above qualifications; they all depict a character who ought to attract admiration, to say the least, hiding the "insignificant" fact that he was a three-hundred-fold manslayer, even calling POV a reference to it. This is the logical consequence of the diligence with which leftist editors quickly delete anything that might mar their hero's image, and even cry foul (like Nubiatech above) when anyone doesn't abide by their rules. This user even writes "POV (not a fact) mentioned with due weight elsewhere on the article" in his reverting edit summary. Question: if it already is mentioned elsewhere, why it's not considered 'POV' there, while within the lead section it is? The marrow of the discussion is that we are not talking of viewpoints here, we are talking about facts.

Third. I've been following the WP:Ignore all rules rule, mentioned by Redthoreau in a prominent location in his user page, toward the objective of having Wikipedia tell the truth, which doesn't appear to be among the most important objectives or goals of this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help and tell me about it). I will come back, promise. Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AVM, I’ve been around this article long enough to realize the potential futility in debating these issues with an impassioned individual whose personal hatred for Guevara, Fidel Castro, the Cuban Revolution etc (probably justified) leads them to embark on a near vendetta – and who will merely toss aside all contrary evidence that sways from their accepted or experienced narrative. Your past modus operandi of dismissing those you self-diagnose as "leftist editors" or "leftists" who "deny history", doesn’t allow much room for debate nor intellectual corroboration towards a mutual understanding. You yourself have previously lamented in reference to the WP:NPOV rules that they "protect bastards from being called bastards" which unfortunately for someone with your personal views on these matters - is exactly what WP:NPOV does. In the aforementioned instance you referred to Fidel Castro as a "criminal, murderer, ruthless dictator, liar, thief, and rotten bastard." Now I would support your right to hold these views personally, but such language would not be an appropriate introduction for a neutral encyclopedia article. That is not a "leftist" conspiracy, but rather a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Now I can even empathize with your situation as you have described yourself or the views you hold as being those of = "a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the firing squad, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good." Nonetheless, your personal experiences however tragic, are not only WP:OR, but irrelevant to constructing a neutral encyclopedia based on WP:Verify, WP:Reliable, WP:Weight - (this would be just as true for the family member of a 9/11 victim that wanted to edit Bin Laden’s article with how they truly feel about him as well). Now AVM, as to the specific allegations of your response:

-[1]- The "unilateral naming" that I was referring to, was in reference to your post on the List of executioners article, where you listed Guevara as an "official" executioner without providing a source.

-[2]- As for the Times Online article that you included in this article, I approved of its inclusion in the relevant Legacy section per appropriate weight. It would be ideal to utilize the actual book that the article is in reference to, but the article will do in light of not having the primary source.

-[3]- Nobody here has declared Guevara their "hero", "idol", or "totem" ... please do not confuse following Wikipedia policy with relation to weight, as hagiographic hero worship. We are here to reflect the majority of reliable sources, regardless of what they mirror.

-[4]- You have declared Guevara a "mass executioner" and described this as an indisputable "historical fact". However, this moniker is disputed and not found in the majority of sources. It is indisputable that Guevara personally shot individuals during wartime and a "revolution". Anderson notes several (around 10) documented examples of men who were shot personally by Guevara or on his command for a number of "crimes" in the Sierra including desertion, stealing rations, raping a peasant, being an informer (chivato) etc. Anderson also notes the 55 executions at La Cabana carried out in instances where Guevara had the final appellate say on whether to suspend or lessen the death sentences handed down by the revolutionary tribunals. As not to drag this response on forever, I will point you to a previous archived discussion ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#La Cabaña & Executions. With all that said "mass executioner" is a judgment call and matter of opinion. For starters who defines "mass", more than one? Also "executioner" is a weighted term for the first line of an article. Is a U.S. Governor who refuses to commute a death sentence an "executioner"? What about a soldier who shoots deserters close range during war time? Or someone who orders others to shoot people, but doesn't do the "executing"? However, the article does note that Guevara "unhesitatingly shot defectors" "executed" individuals, and that certain people consider him an "ruthless executioner", "butcher" – these are all acceptable in the article, but not as a declarative statement in the opening remarks. For example, President Harry Truman ordered the nuclear incineration of 150,000 + Japanese. But it would be POV to open up his article by describing him as a "mass executioner", because none of the major sources do. Yet one can still mention in his article the facts surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb, or mention how some consider that a "war crime". To press the issue, you seem to be taking a "fact" and wanting it automatically in the first line irregardless of weight. Example: George Washington owned slaves (this is a fact), but starting off his article with = "Washington was the First President of the United States and a large slave holder" would be WP:POV. No Encyclopedia would begin his entry that way, just like no other online Encyclopedias would begin an entry about Guevara with describing him primarily as a "mass executioner". Likeminas has provided the Britannica link above if interested for comparison.

[5] As for your issue with "respectable" terms, they are merely neutral ones that don’t lay judgment (see WP:Words to avoid). You view them as overly positive, because your personal view of Guevara is highly negative to begin with, and we’ve seen above how you would like Fidel Castro to be described. Of note a POV way to describe Guevara (which would be inappropriate and the paradoxically opposite of your own view) would be to say "Che Guevara was an Argentine brave freedom fighter, liberator of the poor, hero to those who strive for justice everywhere, and prophet against the brutality of Capitalism." Now of course such an introduction for an Encyclopedia would be absurd, but I am sure that if this article was the work of those who as you said view Che as their "totem", that is how it would read.

[6] To conclude AVM, and I apologize for the length, the article presently mentions an array of unsavory aspects about Guevara, including that he executed people and shot them without hesitation. The issue seems to be your desire to describe him as a "mass executioner" in the opening of the lead, which has been unanimously rejected thus far in the past and present based on Wiki policy and the overall weight of material on the subject.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

AVM, regarding your statement above:

"If user Nubiatech feels offended by the word 'bullshit', I may also feel offended when he/she childishly calls 'POV' my qualification of mass executioner,[...]"

I want to bring to your attention the "No personal attacks" policy, which clearly urges: "Comment on content not on the contributor". Describing my edits as you did above is clear violation of that policy. Keep in mind that:

• I did not make any reference to your edit summary, neither did I express any offense taken on my part.
• Tagging an edit as POV is not a personal attack, per the policy above.
• In my previous 3 edits dealing with this article so far (2 reverts, and this talk section above) I never mentioned, critiqued, idolized, attributed, asserted, stipulated, deified, vilified, glorified, or touched the subject of the article or contributed a single word to the contents of the article.
• All I am talking about so far are WP:NPOV, WP:TERRORIST, and WP:UNDUE; and I'd rather the discussion stays on topic and not get personal. Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 11:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) AVM, per your recent response which I am listing below:

"I inserted the words "mass executioner" in the lead of the Che's article. One of my motives for doing it is that nowadays in Venezuela, as you probably are well aware of, that criminal is being hailed by chavistas as a hero and "Liberator", in the same ranks of Simón Bolívar, which is not only preposterous but nauseating!"

— AVM to SandyGeorgia on July 18, 2009

I would remind you of the wiki policies WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:TEND. Wikipedia is not the place for you to take out your political frustrations towards the regime in Venezuela. The above seems to be a text book example of a wrong motivation for wanting to alter a wikipedia article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, your contribution above in this section was highly interesting and educational, and hence was very appreciated. I have accepted most of your reasoning and as a result have decided not to repeat my sins and leave this article alone. But this last paragraph of yours (on those three Wikipedia policies) is nothing else than a spanking. All I did was to try to involve a very notable editor, fluent in Spanish, and familiar with current Latin American affairs, into this small controversy. Whatever the motivation, 'altering' (that is, editing) a Wikipedia article by adding true content is an absolutely legitimate endeavor, hence deserving respect. Which reminds me of an old itch, the scandalous contrast between fact and opinion in this encyclopedia. In Wikipedia opinions (sustained by references, namely, by other's opinions) seem to be valued better than facts, an impression that is frequently reinforced by the language used in discussions like this one. I remind you of the small detail that you have still not addressed the Third item in my preliminary response: (sic)"...the objective of having Wikipedia tell the truth, which doesn't appear to be among the most important objectives or goals of this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help and tell me about it)." As an aid in a presumably desirable quest for the truth, I'd recommend the article The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand by the notable writer Álvaro Vargas Llosa, besides, of course, some of his books, which in all likelihood you are already familiar with.

Regards, --AVM (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia -for better or worse- is not that concerned with truth.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.Likeminas (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Then, very regrettably, Wikipedia is crippled from its birth, suffering from an inherent, incurable disease: its disregard for truth. Such policies theoretically allow the building of articles comprised mainly of false contents, simply by providing ample references that in turn are false, claiming they are "reliable sources". And that is just what might be happening right now to a sizable proportion of the 3-million-plus articles, making Wikipedia unreliable per se. That's very saddening indeed. I just knew Wikipedia was too good to be true: now, evidently, it is true that it is not that good after all. It's more than disappointing, more than dismal: it's just nauseating. After more than 2,500 edits, I feel like quitting: I have stopped being a loyal believer. --AVM (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but its been in our core policies all along. Anyway, "truth" isn't as clearcut as you seem to think - there are (at least) two sides to every story you know.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead neutrality

Resolved

I think that much of neutrality concerns over the lead would we alleviated if it was noted in the fourth paragraph that "Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years" and that "he remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community" (from Legacy section). -- Vision Thing -- 10:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the first phrase about "che inspired revolutions reinforcing etc" is that this is an opinion not a fact and it would have to be attributed to a very good source and it would have to be agreed that it is such a significant viewpoint that mentioning it in the lead does not give it undue weight. The problem with the second is that it rather goes without saying that he is hated among exiled cubans - I think we could find a better way to phrase this. And it would need a source.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for both claims are in the 'Legacy' section. -- Vision Thing -- 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, the problem becomes that if we bloat the lead with how many Cuban exiles feel negatively about him then we would also have to mention his positive portrayal on the island itself. If we include that he is a "butcher" to many in Miami, then per Wp:Undue we have to mention how he is also "Saint Ernesto" in Bolivia and a "hometown hero" in parts of Argentina. The end result is a lead far too long per WP:LEAD & WP:MOS. Right now the lead mentions that he reviewed the appeals and firing squads, unhesitatingly shot people, has been occasionally reviled, and is controversial. I would wager that these are all true, and satisfy the requirement of both sides on the matter per Wp:Undue (remembering that are job is to represent the worldwide view of Che, not just the American one). Lastly, I would contend that we will probably never be able to produce an article that someone who loathes Che to the core would approve of (especially if we honored WP:NPOV). There is no amount of barbarity that we could portray that would satisfy those who view Che as nothing more than a cross between Hitler, Stalin, and Vlad the Impaler. Likewise we will probably never be able to write an article that would satisfy an extreme admirer of Che, who has whitewashed all of his faults, believes that he never hurt a fly, and finds him more akin to John Lennon than Vladimir Lenin. With this in mind, I feel this article does a good job at reporting the occurrences without passing editorial judgment. Do you disagree?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the lead we have "As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a new man driven by moral rather than material incentives, Guevara evolved into a quintessential icon of leftist-inspired movements." and "He has been mostly venerated and occasionally reviled in a multitude of biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, songs, and films." In my opinion these two sentences are most problematic. First sentence talks why he is an icon of the left. We should also have one sentence that explains why he is despised/hated. Second sentence seems to be OR. -- Vision Thing -- 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, would your concerns be alleviated if we moved the "As a result ..." sentence down to the legacy section? As for the second sentence that is nearly indisputable (even amongst his detractors who despise the fact that it is so). The statement itself links to the article List of works related to Che Guevara displaying the vast list of "biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, and films" dedicated to Guevara, while this section has a detailed list of the various songs of tribute. In fact there have been entire documentaries just about the aforementioned phenomenon itself (most recently "Chevolution" and "Personal Che") and entire books written about his dissemination across all of these mediums (namely "Che's Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image" by Michael Casey & "Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon" by Trisha Ziff). Even Che detractors have written extensively on how he has been widely praised in the majority of mediums (although they obviously wish this weren't the case, and belief it to be misguided). However, our only job here is to merely reflect the reality (i.e. that Che has been represented mostly positive and occasionally negative across a wide range of mediums) - not to comment on whether such positive coverage is justified, warranted, etc. --- My primary goal here is to allow Maunus to continue his/her GA review, which is being placed on hold while we discuss this matter – thus would your concern of the lead by alleviated if we move the first sentence down as I mention above, and keep the second one as is ? - (I can even source it to a number of books, but usually they request that we avoid over ref’ing the lead). Additionally, what are others views on the matter and this proposal?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope I am a sufficiently reliable source to support the POV that I am male. One can also go overboard with neutrality.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ;)·Maunus·ƛ· 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are against sentence that explains negative views, I agree with your proposal to move down "As a result ..." sentence. While I agree that it can't be disputed that Che Guevara has been a subject of a large number of works, there is no way to check that he has been mostly venerated in them. Such claim should be supported by a reliable source. Would "He has been a subject of…" work for you? -- Vision Thing -- 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, I have amended the article according to your suggestion and agreement to my proposal. I hope that you will now acknowledge that the lead is now sufficiently npov (although it will never be perfect with such a polarizing figure) to give Maunus the green light to continue his GA review.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing, after reading the results of my last edit I felt that now the "Notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors..." line was out of place without the previously removed “icon for his poetic invocations to class struggle etc" --- before the two of them sort of acted as a point/counter point to explain his legacy. As a result of my fear that the lead could now be criticized as overly critical (for mentioning his ruthlessness for shooting but not his adoration for his ideas) I decided to make one more additional edit where I went for more of a basic line on him being "revered" and "reviled" without getting into specifics of why (hence what the legacy section and separate article should be for). Hopefully this will prevent further debate on how many positive and negative attributes of his legacy to place in the lead. What are your thoughts? Thoughts of other editors?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I made one more adjustment [7] to the lead. It is not perfect, but I think that the lead looks pretty good now. -- Vision Thing -- 08:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision, I made one additional edit as well, with relation to your edit. I figure that both the Bay of Pigs & Missile Crisis should be included together from a historical point, and I added a ref to his role in training the militias of the former. If you believe it is at least "pretty good for now", then would it be appropriate to place a "resolved" tag on this subsection of the thread? To demonstrate that we worked it out.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tania's role?

Explain? Former Stasi operative Haydée Tamara Bunke Bider, better known by her nom de guerre "Tania", who had been installed as his primary agent in La Paz, was reportedly also working for the KGB and in several Western sources she is inferred to have unwittingly served Soviet interests by leading Bolivian authorities to Guevara's trail.[132][133]

I don't understand this. The Soviets might have not wanted political disturbances in South America, but they didn't (one thinks) want Che killed.--andreasegde (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the book - Tania: Undercover in Bolivia with Che Guevara could be of assistance not only for this brief section, but for her article as well. I have not yet read the book, but will certainly add it to my (unfortunately long) reading list :o).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Andreasedge, the text is presumably referring to the fact that following Guevara's 1965 speech in Algiers (where he denounced Soviet complacency in their own form of "Imperialism"), many officials in the Soviet Union began to view Guevara as an ally of Mao's China in the Sino-Soviet split.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Spanish and Basque descendent"

Resolved

In the article it is said that: "Ernesto Guevara was born to Celia de la Serna and Ernesto Guevara Lynch on June 14, 1928[1] in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of Spanish, Basque and Irish descent."

I think it is redundant to say that is Spanish and Basque descendent, since the Basque country is a "Comunidad Autonoma" inside Spain. With only one of the terms (Spanish/Basque) would be clearer. Furthermore, the source of the reference [15] is not given, so his basque ascendency is not demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.117.145.84 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 163, your post raises several issues. [1] Your average Basque citizen of Euskal Herria would not describe themselves or view themselves as "Spanish" (not to mention that the Basque country extends into France). [2] The utilized ref points out that:

"Che's last name "Guevara" derives from the Castilianized form of the Basque "Gebara", a habitational name from the province of Álava."

Thus Che's primary last name (Guevara) is Basque, his father's second last name (Lynch) is Irish and his mother's last name (de la Serna) is Spanish. Hence he is described as being of Spanish, Basque, and Irish descent. [3] Is it your contention that “Basque” does not merit a separate distinction from Spanish, or are you disputing the fact that Guevara has any Basque ancestry? (a point acknowledged by Che's father himself)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, keep both in; and I like your explanation.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Redthoreau, keep the Basque reference. Basque is not currently a nationality but a distinct ethnicity or cultural heritage. I would treat this as, for example, the Sean Connery entry, which calls him Scottish in the opening sentence despite Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.Yooper2bee (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. You might as well say Frisians are Dutch if your going to call the Basque Spanish. --Mike Oosting (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am marking this matter as resolved per above consensus.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To many "Marios"

Resolved

The executioner was Mario Terán, a half-drunken sergeant in the Bolivian army who had requested to shoot Che based on the fact that three of his friends named "Mario" from B Company,.. should be corrected or at least made clear that all three were named "Mario" and all form B Company... --89.152.177.195 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the above matter.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Christ-like

I suggest deleting these words: "described by Almudevar of the San Francisco Chronicle as "Christ-like"". Reason: undue weight on a comment by one reporter. If there are other sources also calling him something similar, however, it might be OK to keep this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Any bearded man, beaten down (probably wounded), malnourished in some sort of serene state can be said to be "Christ-like", since this is the physical aspects most people extract from iconic representations o Christ, especially the most "popular" one of Christ on the cross. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it's not clear to me whether you support or oppose deleting "Christ-like". In any case, what you express seems to be your own opinion; the article has to be based on material from published sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Copper & IP89, I have gone ahead and expanded the description with an additional reliable reference and position of a more notable individual. I hope this alleviates your initial concern Copper, if it does not - then please include your further concerns.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the undue positive connotation of the term. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk)

I agree it's a positive connotation. "Undue" sounds like an allusion to WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced it's undue in that sense. I think a lot of very positive material has been written about Che. Redthoreau would be able to comment more authoritatively on that. Now that an additional reference has been provided, I think it's OK to leave the reference to "Christ-like" in. It's a balance: we've left out the stuff about him hugging lepers, etc.; such other positive material adds, in a sense, to the weight of this: that is, we select a certain amount of positive information to be representative of all the positive information written about him. Similarly for the negative. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

9 bullet wounds ?

Quote from this article:

In all Guevara was shot nine times. This included five times in the legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and finally in the throat.[149]

Photos in Wikipedia show this is nonsense. Where is the evidence of the nine entry wounds? 75.19.40.173 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IP 75, the statement is referenced, and the fact of multiple bullet wounds is noted in all biographies. You simply looking at a post-mortem photo on Wikipedia (nearly all of which were taken the day after upon public presentation in Vallegrande - after the body was cleaned, drained, embalmed etc) would be considered WP:OR and not relevant for Wikipedia. Do you have a published WP:RS that calls into question the amount of bullet wounds which we could investigate?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover story of execution ?

Forgive me if this is already addressed, I was just skimming thru the article and may have missed it. However while it's apparent from the article that the government planned to claim that Guevara had been killed in action during a clash with the Bolivian army it's not clear if this was the actual story they released and if it was, how the truth was uncovered. From the refs, it's apparent it's been known since 1970 at least Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nil Einne, to answer your question - the alleged "killed in action" story was first officially debunked publicly by French journalist Michèle Ray, who traveled to Bolivia shortly after Che's execution and was able to interview many of the primary players involved along with campesino witnesses. Her findings were included in her March 1968 cover story entitled "In Cold Blood: The Execution of Che by the CIA" for Ramparts Magazine. I have the original magazine in my possession (and it is cited in the present article), but am not sure if it can be accessed online. If you are really interested in its contents, then perhaps I could scan them and email them to you (just let me know) & nice to meet you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Name of page

Just out of curiosity, the name is Ernesto Guevara, why is the name of the page Che Guevara, che being only a nick name? I know most people wouldnt be able to tell the name, as everyone knows the man as Che, but this is supposed to be a encyclopedia. Shouldn't it at least be Ernesto Che Guevara? Patrick Ouellet 13:46, 29 October 2009 (EST) Lazypete (talk • contribs)

Hello Lazypete, to answer your question, the policy of WP:COMMONNAME states that "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." For instance wikipedia uses Bill Clinton (not "William Jefferson Clinton"). Thus, Che Guevara would be the articles title, as it is the most common name used.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "Che"

Section 2 "Guatemala, Arbenz and United Fruit", third paragraph erroneously states that in Argentine colloquialism, the word che is "slang casual speech filler used similarly to "eh" or "pal." This is incorrect - "che" is primarily used as "hey" in English - Example "Che, que haces? = Hey, what are you doing", secondly as "pal" ex = "Como estas, che? = How are you, pal?" see [8]. I recommend the article be changed accordingly. Alex79818 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Add'l note: Could it be that the "Eh" in the article refers to "Hey"...as in the Canadian "Eh Buddy"? If so it would be accurate but confusing as Argentine colloquialism also has an "Eh" that corresponds to the English "Ummmm". So in that context, while "Eh", "Oy", "Ey", etc would all technically be accurate, I'd submit that "hey" is more universally known and therefore clearer.Alex79818 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex, many of these issues are covered at Che (Spanish). "Che" can be used at the start or end of a sentence and could be compared to a wide array of words in the English language.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The origin and meaning of his nickname would be of interest to many readers. Shouldn't it be mentioned briefly in the article itself with a Wikilink to Che (Spanish)? Irv (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Irv, currently the article states:

During this period he acquired his famous nickname, due to his frequent use of the Argentine vocative interjection che, a slang casual speech filler used similarly to "eh" or "pal."[39]

Che (Spanish) is also linked in the above statement. Do you believe additional elaboration is warranted?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Films

Is it worth having a section which briefly mentions the films made about him? They all have their own articles, but I thought it might be worth having a mention in this article. If this has been discussed before and rejected, could someone let me have a link to the discussion? The films (and articles) are: Che! (film), Che Guevara (film) and Che (film). I am aware that they are all mentioned on the disamb page. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

PhantomSteve, there are an array of theatrical and documentary films which look at aspects of the life of Che Guevara, not to mention movies which feature his historical character. I am personally torn on whether this article should have a brief section on these works, but could see the benefit of a minor mention (of the more notable films with their own Wiki articles) in the Legacy section. What did you have in mind?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I didn't have anything particular in mind! This issue came up on the Help Desk, and I thought I'd ask here, as people reading this would be more likely to have a reasoned/insightful opinion on this. After thinking about it now (i.e. a few seconds' thought!), I think that any major films and documentaries should have a brief mention in the Legacy section - but as to which ones would be 'major', I wouldn't be able to hazard a guess! Again, that's something which is best left to those who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Source changed by bot

Resolved

Hi all, I cannot change it myself as the page is semi protected and I have not yet 10 edit on wiki:en (I write mostly on wiki:fr). In the "Legacy" part, the reference sourced for Nelson Mandela quote "referred to him as an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom" has been changed mistakenly by a bot (see [9]). I checked the new Anderson reference and it's not on that page. Please confirm that the reference erased by the bot "Guevara, Ernesto (2009). Che: The Diaries of Ernesto Che Guevara. Ocean Press. ISBN 1920888934. p11" is OK, as I am re-using it on the Nelson Mandela article that I am writing on wiki:fr. Thanks in advance Apollofox (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Apollo, and welcome. I believe I have fixed the issue. The page number is actually "II" as in two capitalized Roman numerals, not the number eleven ("11"). I can attest to the source being accurate as I have the book in front of me.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another cropped version of the famous photograph

Resolved

- as image was deleted.

While somewhat grainy, I would say its much better than the version we use currently, which is highly contrasted. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, in my view this photo is of much lesser quality than the one currently utilized - it is not only "grainy" and of a poor resolution, but looks like it has been darkened (as the original photo displayed the bright contrast seen in the image currently used). I am open to other's views though.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have increased the photograph's brightness and contrast. The main difference being that Che's features are far better defined on this version than the current. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Economical dependency on the Eastern Bloc

I've added some sentences, concerning commercial connections with eastern states. An important and undesireable consequence of isolation within the western world was consequentially a growing economical dependency on the Eastern Bloc. This should be mentioned in the article. --Henrig (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I've made minor edits to it. I suggest deleting the last sentence, though: "Such agreements helped Cuba's economy to a certain degree but had also the disadvantage of a grewing economical dependency on the Eastern Bloc." This doesn't seem to me to be NPOV. There's a theory that Cuba was acting essentially as an agent of the Soviet Union when giving aid to Africa for example; but there's also a theory that Cuba was acting on its own initiative there. I don't know whether there's any solid evidence of dependency or of any objectively disadvantageous results of such dependency (or of what would have been disadvantageous in Che Guevara's opinion). Perhaps from some points of view, dependency on the Eastern Bloc (if verifiable) was advantageous in some way. Gaining benefit from something is not the same thing as creating a dependency on it: the need may have existed regardless. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest to rephrase this sentence, such as "... but some people suppose, that ...whereas ..." The issue is an frequently mentioned aspect. If it's possible to handle or touch it in one or two short sentences, this could be the best solution. Maybe you find an appropriate phrasing on second thought. If you see no satisfactory possibility for a short phrasing, a deletion of this sentence maybe convenient. The other way round would be better. Just my opinion. --Henrig (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a reference for a statement like that? Phrases like "some people" are usually to be avoided per WP:WEASEL. If you can find a quote from a source, I can try to think of wording that I think could be justified by the quote. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You write about different theories and for these theories there are sources for sure. But at the moment they are not at hand. I just feel, it would be not bad, to touch this topic too. But maybe after someone delivers some sources. --Henrig (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Image Status for Info Box Photo?

Just throwing this out because I am not entirely familiar with the process for nomination. I think that the photo of Che, as one of the most iconic images I can think of, should be a featured image. --Alang pennstate '13 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it myself a while ago and it wasn't passed, for not being of a high resolution or quality enough. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The uncropped version of the original Guerrillero Heroico photograph is listed as a Valued Picture here on Wikipedia. As for being a featured image on our sister site of Wikipedia Commons that decision would need to be debated and made there.   Redthoreau -- (talk) -- (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article

Collapsing: Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. TP is for proposing specific sourced additions, not for listing personal opinions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As someone who has read many books on Che Guevara, I must say that I am very impressed with this article. It is obvious that the editors who compiled it have researched the subject well. Bravo. 66.229.231.189 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC) +1 on the enthusiasm. Can't claim to be an expert on him, but have just read the entire article in one go. Well done, Wikipedians. --84.44.248.179 (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC) One go for me as well. Kudos Cryptonio (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I also enjoyed reading the article and found it a very nice and objective read. Nice work guys. This should be a FA. 170.170.59.133 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC) The article is an objectively written one, that addresses the criticisms and defences of all varying sides. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC) And I agree with the above I.P. address. With some more work, this article could easily qualify for to be a FA. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I agree to an extent with the objectivity, although the opening statement seems a bit overly positive in comparison to the actual article and the history of the character. 96.39.166.159 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC) This article is an excellent example of revisionist history, also known as a complete and utter fallacy. I understand now why so many people think Mr. Guevara is a swell guy...they don't know anything about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.127.66 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC) This is not an excellent article. It is a false tale of Che Guevara, meant to make him look like some hero. Wikipedia needs to change this article to reflect the true occurrences of Che Guevara's life and actions. People must not continue to practically worship this man when their entire reasoning is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.77.185 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 January 2010

Last words variations?

User:Mark K. Jensen made the following addition to the article as a sub-section:

Slavoj Zizek lists six additional "variants of Che Guevara's 'last words'": (1) "Aim well. You are about to kill a man." (2) "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, you are only going to kill a man." (3) "Know this now, you are killing a man." (4) "I knew you were going to shoot me; I should never have been taken alive." (5) "Tell Fidel that this failure does not mean the end of the revolution, that it will triumph elsewhere. Tell Aleida to forget this, remarry and be happy, and keep the children studying. Ask the soldiers to aim well." (6) "Don't shoot, I am Che Guevara and I am worth more to you alive than dead."< ref >Slavoj Zizek, In Defense of Lost Causes (New York and London: Verso, 2008), pp. 433 & 515n.16.< /ref >

Do editors believe that inclusion of these variations is appropriate? Or perhaps could it simply be mentioned that variations exist and then list a few (or all) in the references and not the article's body? What are other's thoughts? Moreover, variation #6 is never listed as a last statement, but is usually alleged to have been said upon capture (with execution occurring the following day) so if indeed Zizek reports such a thing, I believe credibility and accuracy would be a concern?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK either way, as long as there's a reliable source for them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mao caption, Sino-Soviet Split

The caption with Che meeting Mao is wrong. Che was not a Maoist. He was natural in the Sino-Soviet split, he tried to bring both sides together. Also he even had a east German supporting him in Bolivia, that shows support from the Soviet Union. --Scudster17 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Hello Scudster, and nice to meet you. The picture caption in question states:

"Guevara took a pro-Chinese stance on the Sino-Soviet split."

For starters, the article is very careful not to declare Che a "Maoist", as his views on Marxism were complex and ever evolving. In fact as the years went by he was accused of being everything from a "Leninist", to a "Maoist", to a "Stalinist" or a "Trotskyite". However, on the matter of the Sino-Soviet split his position seems to be fairly clear and undoubtedly pro-Chinese. Biographer Jon Lee Anderson writes about this schism fairly extensively in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life ...

[1] On page 580 for instance, Anderson notes that: "In direct contradiction to the policy of ‘peaceful co-existence’, his ceaseless calls to armed struggle, his emphasis on rural guerrilla warfare, and his stubborn determination to train, arm and fund Communist party dissidents – even Trotskyists – over the protests of their national organisations had led to the growing suspicion in Moscow that he was playing Mao’s game."

[2] Then again on pg 615, Anderson notes how Korionov, deputy chief of the USSR Central Committee’s America’s Department, remarked that: "The Argentine was determined to push ahead with the armed struggle in Latin America, he distrusted the Kremlin’s policy of peaceful co-existence, and in the Sino-Soviet schism, he was on the Chinese side."

[3] Lastly, Anderson on pg 585 includes the views of CPSU CC member, Metutsov, who went to Cuba and met with Che and concluded that although he thought Che was a sound "Marxist-Leninist", "... one could truly say that, yes, Che Guevara was contaminated by Maoism because of his Maoist slogan that the rifle can create the power. And certainly he can be considered a Trotskyite because he went to Latin America to stimulate the revolutionary movement".   

For an array of reasons Guevara seems to have taken the Chinese position in the split, although it seems that he always hoped that the sectarian divisions between the two sides could be forged, with the Soviets relenting to his and Mao's position on the necessity of guerrilla warfare. Do you have any sources which contradict the above material?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any material to support my claim off hand. My professor, in my World Topics: Latin American Revolutions and Revolutionaries class, was discussing the Sino-Soviet split and I asked him how Che was not a Maoist then what side did he align with. I think that because Che emphasized agency over structure that it did not really matter if he seemed to be supporting one side or the other. Also there should be some information showing that Che's "New Man" theory was influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre's claims on his view of existence precedes essence.Scudster17 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Scudster, if your professor has published any of his work per WP:Verify then we could possibly include it here, however personal testimony would be considered WP:OR and not be permissible. In addition, there is no doubt that Che's ideas were influenced by Jean Paul Sartre's theories, and if sources can be found, then you should feel free to add that material to the article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Great article

One of the best articles written on Wikipedia, escaped from anglo-saxon perspective, very neutral and informative. Congrats! --201.79.115.42 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Family? Descendents?

The article is outstanding and exhaustively researched, except for one odd exception: in this text of thousands of words, Guevara's two marriages are barely noted, and his five children are not mentioned at all. One exiled grandson is named. I understand that the life of a great revolutionary must be consumed in deeds that achieve his ideals (just as his name, Ernesto, was consumed by his nom de guerre, Che). Still, there is no question Guevara's family would have had significance for him, and they should be mentioned. I would also like to know if the legend is true, or false, or unverifiable, that Guevara spoke about his children a few hours before his death, with the young soldier who'd been assigned to guard him. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)younggoldchip

Younggoldchip, I agree with your contention and will attempt to increase the amount of information regarding his immediate family (perhaps a family photo of Che with his children could be included as well?). As for the question of his last statements, I know a few biographies mention such a thing, thus I will see if I can locate them specifically.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "nombre de guerra?" 98.114.208.181 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

CIA racism

"Che is fairly intellectual for a Latino." 24.80.113.143 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 24, are you objecting to the inclusion of the remark altogether or stating that it should be labeled as "racist"? At one time it was, but a few editors on the TP believed it was more neutral to merely list the quote and let the reader make their own conclusion.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Che's "black is indolent" remark

Although this matter has been dealt with in the past on the talk page (with no rationale for inclusion), yesterday's Fox News feature by Glenn Beck prominently featured the aforementioned diary remark by Guevara (unfortunately without any surrounding context) and predictably has already led to a new user attempting to insert the statement as being representative of Che's personal views. Thus, -(in the absence of an article FAQ which would normally address this sort of thing)- I figured I would rehash the matter so that potential editors wishing to discuss the remarks could decide on whether they (now) merit inclusion. First to the obvious questions: -(Q1)- Did Che ever write such a statement? -(Q2)- Was Che thus racist against blacks and should that view be presented in his article per Wp:Undue, WP:RS etc? I will address both of them to the best of my ability and encourage others to weigh in as well if they have further insight.

-(Q1)- First, yes a 24 year old Ernesto (he was not yet christened "Che") did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952, during his continental trip which would later be entitled and encompassed in his 150 page memoir The Motorcycle Diaries. The full context of this statement is addressed by biographer Jon Lee Anderson on [page 92] of "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life." According to Anderson, Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado had just arrived in the city of Caracas, Venezuela, which at this time was "swollen with migrants" as a result of the nation’s oil boom. As a result the hillsides were draped with "squalid worker slums" comprised of a mostly Afro-Hispanic (black) population. Anderson goes on to state how Guevara up to that point, except for a few brief instances in his life, had never "been around black people" (which were a rarity in his native Argentina) especially for someone of Che’s economic & social class. On this occasion Guevara after meandering through a local "barrio" (slum) made a written "observation" that Anderson states was "reflective" of the "arrogance and condescension" of a "stereotypical white Argentinean" (especially in 1952). The full diary passage that Anderson includes is as follows:

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations."

A few things of importance in reference to this observational passage. (A) Inclusion of this "observation" could be more applicable to the article The Motorcycle Diaries (if anywhere). (B) Anderson notes two pages later [pg 94] how after visiting the U.S. for a brief time (30 days in Miami), directly after he made this observation, Guevara complained to friends about "white discrimination against blacks" that he had witnessed. Thus it is somewhat unclear how Guevara viewed blacks in relation to equality of treatment, although yes he made a statement that I would personally deem offensive months earlier. (C) At the end of Guevara’s journey 3 months later (after the "indolent" remarks), Guevara then states that he "is not the man he once was" and declares himself a transformed individual. Thus it is not clear if Guevara’s views on blacks were altered in that short amount of time based on his trip or how much longer he continued to hold this "observation" on blacks.

What is known about the later revolutionary Che Guevara, which I believe addresses question -(Q2)- are the following points. In reference to "was Che racist against blacks?" – it would obviously depend on what time in his life you are speaking in reference to. Up until age 24, one might be able to state that indeed he was, although his mainstream biographers do not expressively do so. What we do know about his later life once he became "El Che" 4 years later is the following. (1) Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the Southern United States. (2) Che's friend and personal bodyguard shown here (who accompanied him at all times after 1959) was Harry "Pombo" Villegas, who was Afro-Cuban (black). Pombo accompanied Che to the Congo and to Bolivia, where he survived and now lives in Cuba. Of note, Pombo speaks glowingly of Guevara to this day shown here. (3) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964 (as the article currently notes), he spoke out in favor of black musician Paul Robeson, in support of slain black leader Patrice Lumumba (who he heralded as one of his heroes), against white segregation in the Southern U.S. (which still unfortunately existed), and against the white South African apartheid regime (long before it became the Western 'cause de jour'). (4) Che was also heralded by Malcolm X during this trip to NY and in contact with his associates to whom he sent a letter, and later on behalf of his actions in Africa - praised by Nelson Mandela and the Black Panther's Stokely Carmichael as the article currently mentions. (5) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of 100 Afro-Cubans (blacks) shown here including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. This resembled the fight in Cuba, where Che's units were also made up of mostly mulattos and blacks. (6) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique shown here & here, for their independence from the Portuguese.

(7) Lastly, as the article currently notes, in August 1961 (9 years after his "indolent" remark), Guevara attacked the U.S. for "discrimination against blacks, and outrages by the Ku Klux Klan", which matched his declarations in 1964 before the United Nations (12 years after his "indolent" remark), where Guevara denounced the United States policy towards their black population, stating:

"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?"

Now despite all of these issues, could Che have still "been racist against blacks or secretly found them indolent?" I guess so, but these actions (as his biographers Anderson, Castaneda and Taibo note) especially in the 1960’s do not resemble a man with racist attitudes towards black people. Most biographers, claim that this unfortunate and offensive early "observation" by Guevara, represented his opinion as a young 24 year old venturing out amongst other races for the first time, and do not represent the man whom the world would later know as Che. Now is it worthy of inclusion in this article? I don’t believe so, although I am open to countering arguments. However, it may be worthy of inclusion in The Motorcycle Diaries article, if presented in the appropriate context. As always, other's views are encouraged and more than welcome with corroborating sources for those views obviously appreciated.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:38, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

"Although this matter has been dealt with in the past on the talk page (with no rationale for inclusion)...", Really? How was it "dealt" with? Your statement seems to imply some sort of consensus was reached. Was there a consensus reached? Was there a rationale for exclusion of his clearly racist comments? Hammersbach (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I believe that you may be misinterpreting my remark of "dealt with" to imply "resolved" which I agree it was not. The matter was briefly discussed in August 2009 and earlier in October 2008. However, there has never been any Wp:concensus for inclusion (the usual threshold) or exclusion. I am not against including the remarks, although I believe that per Wp:Undue that we would need to devise a way to present them in their proper historical and situational context. For instance, many times this quote is parroted by Che’s ideological detractors to imply a lifelong stance of racism, but as I believe the above information demonstrates (and seconded by all of Che’s mainstream biographers) they were actually the unfortunate private musings of a young man with an interest at the time in anthropology who had encountered blacks in a slum for the first time --- and more importantly nearly every action by Guevara from the following year until his death 14 years later --- was if anything anti-racist or at the very least pro-black (especially considering this was at a time when it was still illegal for whites and blacks in many parts of the American south to share a water fountain). Moreover, per this --> BBC article we have the recent remarks by Che's black Swahili interpreter in the Congo (Dr. Freddy Ilanga) that Guevara "showed the same respect to black people as he did to whites." Now this was obviously in 1965, rather than in 1952 when the "indolent" diary remark was made, but is still relevant when considering whether these remarks are worthy of inclusion (or how to present them). Additionally, we have the issue of whether these remarks belong in this main biographical article, or the sub article on The Motorcycle Diaries from when they were written? I am open to all ideas, what do you (or others) think?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was kind of hoping that someone else would offer a comment but since no one else has, let’s take another look at the two questions above:

-(Q1)- Did Che ever write such a statement? The answer is, as addressed above, “yes a 24 year old Ernesto… did write this statement in his own personal diary on July 17, 1952…” It should also be reiterated that these “unfortunate private musings of a young man with an interest at the time in anthropology” were accompanied by a few other anthoropological observations that were homophobic and anti-Semitic.

-(Q2)- Was Che thus racist against blacks and should that view be presented in his article per Wp:Undue, WP:RS etc? This question is actually a bit of a two-parter, so, -(Q2a)- Was Che thus racist against blacks? The answer to this is… we don’t know, not for certain, one way or the other. As Redthoreau writes above, “…could Che have still ‘been racist against blacks or secretly found them indolent?’ I guess so…” One of the real points of interest here is the conflict between his public actions which, as interpreted above, “(were) if anything anti-racist or at the very least pro-black”, and the racist thoughts expressed in his private writings which, as Che’s daughter Aleida Guevara explains, “Che had not intended … to be published.” So which version of Guevara do we believe, the public one or private one? I don’t know, and I doubt anyone else really does either. But what we do know, and with dead certainty, is that “Chancho” was caught with his hand in the racist cookie jar. -(Q2b)- Should that view be presented in his article per WP:Undue, WP:RS etc? WP:RS – There is no trouble on this score. There is virtually no doubt that Guevara authored these passages and if there is a reliable source that does I have been unable to locate it. WP:Undue – Were these just some questionable allegations being made solely by some right-wing radio talk show host I could maybe understand the complaint being made that this was undue. But this isn’t the case. These are Guevara’s own words written in his private diaries and they represent what can only be termed as a significant departure from the legend that is “Che”. As such I find it difficult to argue against their inclusion, in either article, as being undue. They are both factual and relevant to the topic and are worthy of inclusion. Hammersbach (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I appreciate you taking the time to address some of the above matters. I also share your same wish that other editors will opine and join us in the discussion, but until then, I figured I would [R]espond to your reply and offer up a few comments.

[R1] You state that the indolent remark was "accompanied by a few other anthropological observations that were homophobic and anti-Semitic". The only such statements that even come close to this in The Motorcycle Diaries are one's where Guevara states "The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each" and "The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort." Whether these diary remarks constitute homophobia or anti-Semitism in the cultural context of 1952 would certainly be up for debate, and none of the 3 major Che biographers (per Wp:Verify) seem to believe they do. What we do know from biographer Jon Lee Anderson pg 33-34 is that the young Ernesto belonged to an "anti-fascist" cell during WWII with his Jewish friend Raul Melivosky and that Ernesto was the only student to stand up to a "notoriously pro-Nazi history professor". As for his view on homosexuality, nearly all Che's biographers note that he exhibited the prevalent Latin American machismo of the era, but there aren't any public-or-private remarks on record where he addressed his views on the topic.

[R2] Per your referencing of Che's daughter's remark that "Che had not intended (for his diaries) to be published", I am not sure that I would attach the same sort of suspicion that you do to such a declaration. Nearly all people, don't intend for their private diaries to be published for the world to see. However, to his daughter's credit, these diaries were published per their families decision, and the remarks towards blacks mentioned above was not "scrubbed" or censored, as could have easily occurred.

[R3] I disagree to some extent that the dilemma before us is the paradox involving the "public" versus "private" Che. For starters all of the above remarks stem from a time in his youth before he was "Che", and thus as his biographers note, none of these actions do contradict the public persona he exhibited later in life once he had become not only a well known revolutionary but a public figure who espoused anti-racist views. As already mentioned above, for the last 8 years of his life Che entrusted his protection and life to Harry "Pombo" Villegas, an afro-Cuban, and it is unlikely that he would have decided to give such a task to someone whom he viewed as "indolent" or "inferior" vis-à-vis his race. Plus we have Che's private diaries from his time in the Congo (13 years after the "indolent" remark in 1965), where he is openly critical of the black African forces there - but does not attribute any of their short comings to their race or make any racist remarks.

[R4] Wp:Undue does not necessarily have to do with who is making the accusation (as you state above i.e. "right-wing host") but whether it merits inclusion based on the overall relevance and importance to the readers understanding of the topic. Guevara wrote thousands of pages of work (and we obviously can not include everything), thus we as editors are supposed to narrow down that dearth of information into the most prescient points as to help the reader grasp the topic at hand. For instance, if these remarks were used to display Guevara's ultimate evolution on his views towards race - then they could be deemed relevant, however if they are thrown out there to "demystify" the "legend" of Che and say "see he was secretly a racist, what a hypocrite!" then that would be an WP:OR charge that is not supported by the overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence. Our job here as editors is to echo the prevailing WP:Reliable sources on Guevara, and not to unilaterally combat any "legends" (were they to exist).

[R5] To reiterate, I am not against the inclusion of his "indolent" remark, however I believe that with such a polarizing and controversial figure that it is important that we present the issue in relation to how his biographers do, and not draw our own conclusions. Lastly, Hammersbach, do you believe the quote is more relevant to The Motorcycle Diaries or to this general article? I apologize for the length and again appreciate your efforts towards discourse and collaboration.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I copied some of the points in the above to a new article, Che Guevara and racism, and linked to it from this article. Bayle Shanks (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayle Shanks, as the author of the portion that you copy and pasted to its own article, I would object under the basis of WP:POVFORK, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV for the title (which assumes a "racist" stance) etc. Any of these points that are relevant I believe should be in the main Che Guevara article (and most in fact are). Under your rationale we could have articles on every one of Che's views i.e. "Che Guevara and Capitalism", "Che Guevara and Feminism", "Che Guevara and Environmentalism" etc, which I believe would be unwarranted. I have also nominated that article for deletion as a result of the above rationale.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Added political viewpoints section

This article was currently almost entirely chronological, and didn't provide a way to quickly grasp what Che's opinions and philosophy were. There were various other main articles about his "legacy" and similar, but these only peripherally discuss his own opinions. Therefore, I added an atemporal (by which I mean, not that items within this section should not report the dates at which evidence for Che holding the various viewpoints; they should report these dates, although they don't right now) "political viewpoints section", and added some information on Che's views on racism and homosexuality. Clearly, there is room for inclusion there on many other types of political issues, and I'd like to encourage their addition. Bayle Shanks (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayle Shanks, I have reverted your large additions of a new "political viewpoint" section with the WP:Undue and WP:POVFORK sub-sections of "imprisonment of dissidents", "due process" and "homosexuality". To summarize the totality of Guevara's "political views" (via WP:OR) to one cherry picked quote on racism, homophobia, and imprisonment of dissidents without due process, is also WP:POV. Guevara spoke extensively on dozens of topics including imperialism, capitalism, Marxism, socialism, dependency theory, industrialization, colonialism, neo-colonialism, monopolies, the theory of value, means of production, voluntary labor, international finance, the Vietnam war, guerrilla warfare, foco, dictatorships, race relations, gender equality, importance of literacy etc. Thus, not only do I believe that a section with your four criticisms utilizing out of context quotes is misleading - but per WP:Summary, it would necessitate a full inquiry into all of his views, which would be better suited possibly for the article on Guevarism or inter-spliced into relevant portions of the current article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was an article Guevarism, I feel it should be more prominently linked from the main page. I have linked to it and moved the text I had added here to the Talk page over there, copying this. Bayle Shanks (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the intro with "radical"

In the intro the following sentence is clear bias:

"This belief prompted his involvement in Guatemala's social reforms under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, whose eventual CIA-assisted overthrow solidified Guevara's radical ideology"

It is assuming Guevara's ideology is radical, that is not a fact but rather an opinion, I suggest the removal of the word 'radical'. --A Gooner (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello A Gooner, and nice to meet you. "Radical" can be defined as "favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." In this instance it is not being used pejoratively or as a critique, but rather an accompanying term to signify that his ideology at this time had become crystallized and in its post-Arbenz state, was indeed "radical". Che himself never shunned away from acknowledging the "radical" nature of the transformational Marxist world revolution which he believed was necessary, and in fact saw the term if anything as a compliment. Do you have sources or reasoning for questioning whether Guevara's ideology fits the definition of being "radical"?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not actually a physician, suggest removal of that phrase

Che Guevara never actually practiced medicine, nor did he complete any formal clinical training as would be required to do so. From wikipedia definition of "physician: A physician—also known as doctor of medicine, medical doctor, or simply doctor—PRACTICES'(emphasis mine) the ancient profession of medicine..."

As such, the phrase "physician" is erroneously applied and should be struck from the article, instead clarifying that he merely held a medical degree. See New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Che_Guevara

"In 1948 Guevara entered the University of Buenos Aires to study medicine. After a few interruptions, he completed his formal medical studies there in March of 1953 and received his diploma in June of that year. However, it is not clear whether he ever fulfilled the clinical training required to practice medicine (italics mine)." Captainmerv85 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

CaptainMerv85, a few things of note:

[1] The "New World Encyclopedia" is a Unification Church site which mirrors Wikipedia and 95 % of that Che article there was copied from this Che Wikipedia article - with some adjustments being made per --> "Unification values". Proverbially, you are using the "cart" to direct the "horse".

[2] The matter of Che as a "physician" has arose several times in the past and there has never been any WP:Consensus to adjust or remove the phrase.

[3] Your statement that Guevara "never actually practiced medicine" is potentially dubious. What we do know from the reliable sources is that Che  [a] Graduated from Medical school at the University of Buenos Aires and was certified as a medic  [b] Worked as a volunteer physician in a leper colony  [c] Worked in the allergy section of the General Hospital in Mexico City and gave lectures on medicine as a member of the medical faculty at the National Autonomous University of Mexico  [d] Served as a medic and dentist in a guerrilla war with numerous accounts of instances when he treated wounded men in the course and aftermath of battles  [e] Diagnosed as a physician scores of illnesses and provided some treatments to campesinos during his time in the Sierra Maestra, Congo and Bolivia.

[4] Note that he is not referred to as a "doctor" (i.e. "Dr.") even though during his life, and since his death, many reliable sources have done so. In my opinion "physician" is sufficiently vague to describe the role he played at various points in his life, but I am open to suggestions as well.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mahrooq, 9 June 2010

Resolved

It is stated: "the newly empowered government carried out executions "without respect for due process."[94]". This is subjective. Perhaps "some historians have stated that the executions... etc" would be more appropriate? Mahrooq (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahrooq, the quote has been attributed to the specific biographer (i.e. Jorge Castañeda Gutman) who made the statement and whose work was already being referenced. Thanks for pointing out the issue.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References in Splinter Cell

Resolved

Should it be noted that Suhadi Sadono in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow is based off of Che Guevara?—Smithx807 ^Talk 11:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Smithx807, a mention was added to the appropriate section at Che Guevara in popular culture.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias with phrase "CIA-slain Patrice Lumumba"

Resolved

The main page about Patrice Lumumba states that the CIA, while wanting Lumumba dead, did not have anything to do with his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.121.222 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at first glance it would appear that this particular edit may be at odds with both WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable. Perhaps it would be best if the editor who made this edit were to respond. [10] Hammersbach (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 208 & Hammersbach, setting aside the obvious fact that the Patrice Lumumba article (or any for that matter) should not be used to gage the accuracy of another article, the issue of whether Lumumba should be described in this way is a legitimate question. As to that particular addition, I added the phrase "CIA" to slain because the source I was adding at the time (i.e. Keller) used similar terminology. However, setting that aside, what we do know from an array of sources and what is generally agreed upon (or acknowledged in recent years) by both sides is that:

[a] In 1975 the Church Committee went on record as saying that CIA head Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba’s assassination as "an urgent and prime objective".

[b] The CIA sponsored an earlier assignation attempt to poison Lumumba using toothpaste.

[c] CIA station chief Larry Devlin not only urged the "elimination" of Lumumba, but helped direct his capture and transfer to where he was eventually executed.

[d] The CIA base chief in Elizabethville was in direct contact with the killers the night Lumumba was murdered.

[e] A CIA agent had Lumumba’s body in the trunk of his own car and presumably disposed of the body.

[f] "Lumumba was placed under house arrest in what was widely assumed to be a CIA supported military action" per this ---> NYT source.

[g] That the CIA used the covert program "Project Wizard" to funnel money and equipment that was used to capture Lumumba and hand him over to his killers, while also paying Kasavubu 4 days before he ousted Lumumba, and paying Lumumba’s killers 3 weeks after the execution (per author Godfrey Mwakikagile in Africa 1960-1970: Chronicle and Analysis pg 80-81).

[h] Sources such as the Encyclopedia of the Developing World by Thomas Leonard state outright on pg 309 that "The CIA assassinated Patrice Lumumba in 1961".

[i] While the African authors Ikechi Mgbeoji and Agwuncha A. Nwankwo in their books state that Lumumba was "killed with logistics supplied by the CIA" and "slain by Mobutu at the behest of the CIA" respectively.

[Q] Now to the main question ~ should an agency that wanted Lumumba dead and then through funds and material helped topple, find and capture Lumumba – and then transferred him to his killers who were on their payroll, followed by disposing of Lumumba’s body driven in the trunk of one of their agents ~ be mentioned as being culpable for the "slaying"? In all honesty, I’m not sure and I guess could argue either way (semantically). Obviously we could go into unnecessary exhaustive detail or find a better way to portray that the adversary of Lumumba and his movement was primarily funded, supplied, and supported by the CIA – even though an official card carrying member of the CIA may not have literally pulled the trigger in one of the 3 teams of firing squads that supposedly killed him. I'm open to: suggestions, removing CIA altogether from the phrase, adjusting the wording, or keeping it as is. I also realize this is a minor detail of this particular article. Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, 1) I would like to point out that it is, at best, incorrect to assume that when an editor refers to another article on Wikipedia that they a) did not review the references for that article and b) are not including those references as part of their reference to said article.

2) Bias can not only be expressed by what is put in, but also by what is left out. In this case, no where is any mention made above of the involvement of the Belgians who, from an array of sources and what is generally agreed upon, were the main perpetrators of this sad affair. In an Associated Press article written June 21, 2010, Slobodan Lekic writes that, “Historians generally agree that top Belgian officials and officers conspired to overthrow him, and that they organized and carried out his execution on Jan. 17, 1961.”

3) Given the generally acknowledged primary culpability of the Belgians it difficult to accept the “main question” as you are attempting to frame it. The main question is really whether or not it is bias to refer to Patrice Lumumba as “CIA-slain”. Regardless of the answer, given what we know about Belgian involvement it is factually inaccurate to use the term “CIA-slain” so I am deleting it. Hammersbach (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I would dispute your contention that it is "generally agreed upon" that the Belgians bear the majority of culpability. Nevertheless, I am ok with you removing the phrase "CIA-slain" as the matter is (I would contend) equally disputed - and the amount of detail necessary to hash out the nuances, gratuitous to this particular article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Che's Chilean stop

Resolved

I'm just curious why this article barely mentions the Chilean phase of Che's motor bike trip of south america. If my history is wrong please let me know, but im quite sure that many historical accounts and films mentioned a Chilean phase to Che's motor bike trip, not to mention his trip to the atacama mines in chile's north. To my information the Chilean phase started from the south of Chile and then north to Peru which contradicts a map in this article which claims he started from Buenos Airs and then straight to Peru thus avoiding Patagonia and Chile all together. Can someone please clarify this ... thank you. (202.138.9.10 (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

Hello IP 202, the details of Che's visit to the Chuquicamata copper mine in Chile is included in the article on Guevara's memoir The Motorcycle Diaries. However, your comment points out a possible confusing detail of the article at present. The map of Che's 1952 trip ---> shown here can possibly be confused with the similar looking map of Che's travels from 1953-1956 ---> shown here. To alleviate this possible confusion, I have incorporated both maps in this article, instead of only the latter. Moreover, a brief mention of his visit to the mine is likely warranted - and thus I have added one.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Some of the word usage and punctuation in this otherwise stellar article is lame. See comma for further info. --- signed User:86.217.154.43

number of survivors of the attack on the Granma ?

In the section Cuban Revolution (1st subsection: Invasion, warfare and Santa Clara) Regarding the attack on the Granma as it landed, it states that only 22 survivors were able to find each other afterward.

The first step in Castro's revolutionary plan was an assault on Cuba from Mexico via the Granma, an old, leaky cabin cruiser. They set out for Cuba on November 25, 1956. Attacked by Batista's military soon after landing, many of the 82 men were either killed in the attack or executed upon capture; only 22 found each other afterwards.[58]

On the page for the 26th_of_July_Movement linked from here (1st section, top of page), in the section "Role in the Cuban Revolution" it states:

The landing party was split into two and wandered lost for two days, most of their supplies abandoned where they landed. Of the 82 who sailed aboard the Granma, only 12 eventually regrouped in the Sierra Maestra mountain range.

This page (Che Guevara) has a citation, where as the other does not. I have not located or verified if this source is correct or a credible one. This may be simply a typo in one of these two pages (22 vs 12), or there is an actual dispute on the number of survivors who were able to reunite. This should be clarified and rectified between the two pages. --LaLunaNegra (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hola LaLunaNegra, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is best not to generally use other Wikipedia articles as barometers for the accuracy of Wiki pages. With that said, the discrepancy you point out here is a valid one, with several explanations and varying results depending on the source and time frame in question. First to some of the reasons: [1] In the popular "mythology" of the Cuban Revolution (as takes place with any revolution) the "12" survivors is often repeated and thus parroted. Its origins are both a nod to the religious iconography of the twelve disciples and usually given as the number of Granma passengers who survived through the entire 1957-1959 revolutionary period. Thus, both could be correct, in the sense that 22 of the 82 men survived the landing and early stage, and of those 22, 12 survived till January 1, 1959. [2] However, you will often find sources that don't utilize this contextual nuance and will simply state that "12 men survived the Granma" - along with many others that don't even acknowledge that this difference exists. [3] Leading Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, speaks of this briefly in this ---> interview where he states that only "17" men survived, but makes note of the "Apostolic twelve" being used for historical purposes. [4] In reality, sources could be provided for "22", "17" and "12" - and in the grand scheme, I am not sure that such differences really matter, or if there is a definitive answer. I am open to possible suggestions of how to address the matter, but believe that we shouldn't spend too much article space on what would otherwise be a somewhat trivial issue.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redthoureau, thank you for the response and information. I agree that little to no space should be spent on the various numbers as it may not prove significant in the larger scheme of things, especially if there is not a definitive consensus. I was unaware of the 'nod to religious iconography' and the intentional utilization of symbolism of the 12. That might warrant a small line or two as it's rather interesting. Or, at least I found it so. Thanks for sharing that. :-) LaLunaNegra (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Che's Religion ?

It is correct for Guevara's religion to be described as "None". The consensus against it being "Atheism" or linking "None" to the atheism article is that atheism is not a religion, and that None does not necessarily mean atheist. However, "None" is fairly ambivalent. It could indicate to the reader that Che was apathetic toward religion, an agnostic or somekind of deist or pantheist, rather than the strongly anti-religious atheist he was. I would personally favour: "None (atheism)". Sir Richardson (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, I believe your concern has merit, however there is not consensus amongst biographers that Guevara remained an atheist rather than an agnostic throughout his life. Although he has several "anti-religious" statements on record, he also has several statements (including but not limited to Debray's post-mortem remarks about Che as he neared his demise in Bolivia) that suggest a possible "spiritual" composition. What is known for sure is that Guevara: [a] was baptized Catholic as a baby, [b] kept out of religious classes as a child (because of his parent's atheist views), [c] played on the "atheist" soccer team as a youth (when they divided sides between those who believed and who didn't), and [d] made antagonistic statements with regards to Christianity. However, in The Motorcycle Diaries (book) for instance, Guevara (who studied Buddha as a youth) makes several "spiritual" / "humanist" statements about fate, fatalism and destiny, while throughout his later writings, he often spoke of morality and life having a purpose. He clearly was not religious and vehemently disliked organized religion (particularly Christianity), but I am not sure there is full agreement that he could be described as being an "atheist" throughout his entire life (rather than an agnostic atheist). Do you agree, disagree? Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clarifying. I do think that it would be very much worth incorporating such information such into the article itself. Also notable is his family's protest of his image and legacy being used by Islamic fundamentalists in their agenda. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

3 technical requests for a capable editor

Resolved

Seeing as I can't figure out who to do the following tasks, can an editor who knows how - please do the following:

1. Lessen the size of the signature in the info box.  Done
2. Insert a line under the info box image caption, separating it from the rest of the box.  Not done
3. Make the first Che template at the bottom of the page expanded, while leaving the "Socialism" and "Communism" templates closed how they are now.  Done

Thanks   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To address your concerns:

1. I've uploaded a smaller version of the signature, since the image size is fixed in the infobox. The signature seems rather atypical, but if there are others like this then it may require a proper fix at {{Infobox person}}.
2. That would require a change to {{Infobox person}}, although I don't personally see why a line is necessary.
3. I've added a parameter to the navbox, so you should be ok now.

Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PC78, first thank you very much for the assistance. The signature size is perfect and the box now expanded. Of note, perhaps a "signature_size" line (like exists for the main box image) should be added to the {Person} info box to prevent future occurrences of this problem. As for the dividing line between the caption and other information, that was probably a result of my own neuroticism, since that line was previously there in the {Revolutionary} info box. To me it just looked a little neater that way.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly Capitalism or Capitalism in lead ?

Resolved

This isn't a huge issue, but don't you think it would be more accurate for the first time user? Maybe Che did talk about all forms of capitalism converging into a final form of monopolism, but how would a new user know this? (For example, I didn't know he said that!) Tell me what you think? ValenShephard (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Valen, a potential problem with simply using "capitalism" is that Che didn't believe such an economic structure was ever really possible, arguing that it would always mutate into monopoly capitalism. Che rarely used the term "capitalism" without including a mention of "monopoly capital" or the "oligarchy" that he argued would always develop within a capitalist economy. Che disputed the fundamental ethos of the capitalist model and believed it to be a mirage, thus it would be somewhat inaccurate to list "capitalism" itself, as he never believed this really existed. Che argued that a "free market" has never really existed, and couldn't exist, as he contended that the state would always merge and collude with with the capitalists who control the means of production to create either a fascist, corporatist or oligarchical model (and thus become what Lenin described as monopoly capitalism). The only solution to this Che argued was Marxist world revolution. I understand your concern and argument; however I'm not sure of the best way to display this nuance. Have any ideas?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put. I am just trying to see it from the eyes of reader who doesn't know much about the subject, what impression would they get if they click on the monoply capitalism article? I think they wouldn't really grasp the issue, because the monopoly capitalism article is quite specialised, written mostly as a Marxist perspective. I feel that a new user wouldn't be able to grasp it, without first having some kind of understanding of capitalism in the first place. Would it be misleading of the facts to simply use capitalism? Or maybe a compromise of some kind, such as: we use the link to 'just' capitalism, then in brackets put (which he thought would eventually...) to explain what you just detailed. I think that might be the best of both worlds; the new user gets the link to something which would be educatative and not too specialised or narrow, and others would be able to get an understanding of Che's ideology (and some could just ignore that extra detail). How does that sound? ValenShephard (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a possible resolution, although I'm not sure about it. I would suggest we wait a few days and see if anyone else has additional ideas, and we can both also think of further solutions.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These two concepts, although related, are not the same. Therefore if Guevara used the marxist view of the hypothetical final stage of capitalism then this is the link we should provide. Trying to simplify this for a hypothetical reader is slightly on the OR side and can also be misleading. It is also not a hard concept to grasp. As a result we might even educate a reader or two. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be misleading if we said: "capitalism (which he thought would always degenerate into monopolism etc etc)" and for "monopolism", we link to monopoly capitalism. I've read text from Guevara, and I have seen him use simply "capitalism" frequently. I am not fully convinced that he mostly used monopoly capitalism as his words of choice, but even so, doesn't monopoly capitalism fit under capitalism? I think it would be best to offer both, with an explanation for people who want to grasp his ideology on a more complex level, are catered for also. ValenShephard (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering what you would think of putting: "capitalism (Which he believed would always lead to monopolism)"? For monopolism we link to the article of Monopoly Capitalism. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, I would be ok with putting:

His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of capitalism, monopolism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution.

Thoughts? Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with that. I'll wait a couple of days or whatever to see if anyone else has any opinions, then I'll implement this change. Thanks for the discussion. ValenShephard (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

State capitalism

Can anyone say when Che learnt that Cuba was taking the path of State capitalism? Did he comment favorably or negatively about this?86.42.193.47 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, Guevara favored the elimination of all "material" incentives in favor of "moral" ones, and thus disagreed after leaving as head of the National Bank, with the Cuban government adopting certain aspects of state capitalism. However, Guevara's criticisms of this "mutation" (mostly in private) were primarily aimed towards The Soviet Union. In Guevara's essay "Thoughts on the Transition," he theorized that the troubles of the Soviet economy went back to the introduction in 1921, under Lenin's leadership, of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which "opened the door to the old capitalist production relationships", noting that "Lenin called these relationships state capitalism" ---> see this article. An excellent book if you are truly interested in the subject, is the 2009 work Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution by Helen Yaffe. She briefly discusses the topic in this ---> 2006 article. Possibly there could be an article that solely examines the "Economic Philosophy of Che Guevara" one day on Wikipedia, and Yaffe’s book would make a good initial foundation.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's interesting, but Yaffe ignores all the Soviet subsidies into the Cuban economy. I was a Soviet citizen, now living in "the west", and I prefer the banal slavery of the supermarket to the Soviet slavery that I lived under. Che was preparing a more refined slavery, or so it seems now. You have no idea what it was like, how it crushed you, to be made to live daily towards an ideal that was never, ever realized. Che's system would still have relied on coercion, ultimately, and somehow the article should make that clear. Otherwise people will only consider the nice-sounding parts of his theory and forget the "downside".86.42.223.139 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, remember Che left Cuba in 1966, long before the Soviet subsidies became a mainstay of the economy. Moreover, although I have empathy for your own personal situation, it would be considered WP:OR and is ultimately irrelevant to the construction of this Wiki article. It is our mission as editors to echo the reliable sources and how they present the information, not to WP:Soapbox with considerations to our own personal history, out of fear that others might be drawn to certain ideas that may have caused us personal tragedy (this would be the same if an editor moved "to the West" and wanted to espouse on how much they disliked living under Capitalism as well). Specifically, as for this article, it does mention how Guevara implemented his system of moral incentives, which was ultimately unsuccessful, and eventually abandoned (as the article notes). Lastly, as a possibly ironic side note, near the end of his life Guevara spent 5 months in 1966 living clandestinely in the Czechoslovak village of Ladvi before departing to Bolivia, and expressed disillusionment about the "Soviet model" that had been implemented there – reportedly telling his friend Ulies Estrada, that "Everything is dull here, grey and lifeless. This is not socialism, it is its failure."article Thus you and Guevara might be in somewhat agreement on the realities of life in the Soviet Union, although you would disagree on the ultimate "cure".  ----  Now, hopefully we can move on from an albeit interesting discussion, which unfortunately doesn’t really have a place on an article’s talk page per WP:Forum.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that coercion and force would have been used by Che, and those like him, and that is very relevant. Talking about soapboxes, you come across as a fan of his, but shouldn't we all be as neutral as possible on Wikipedia? I'll leave it here.86.42.194.80 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, of course he used "force", that is usually what armed revolutionaries do. As for "coercion", the article points out that:

... each worker was now required to meet a quota and produce a certain number of goods. However, as a replacement for the pay increases abolished by Guevara, workers who now exceeded their quota only received a certificate of commendation, while workers who failed to meet their quotas were given a pay cut.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that the article fails to acknowledge these two aspects. As for neutrality, and as a historian, I take the policy of WP:NPOV very seriously, and do my best to remain as objective as possible. My own personal nuanced views on Che are irrelevant and I try to keep them from tinting my edits - but I can tell you that most of the unflattering aspects in the article were added by myself. However, I recognize that to some people, anyone not universally and hyperbolically denouncing Che as a "Commie-terrorist-butcher-killer-murderer-scumbag" is obviously "a fan", but there is not much I can do to assuage these people and still follow Wiki policy.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Corpse photo not appropriate

imho corpse pictures are not appropriate for biography articles. just my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.222.130 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP 198. The ---> utilzied corpse photo in question, is a well known post-mortem image of Guevara. Moreover, if it offends your sensibilities, I would point out that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and that the picture itself is not bloody, obscene, or shocking at first glance (if you didn't know better, you might not even realize he is dead in the photo). There are some instances where a particular post-mortem photo may be inappropriate or tasteless in an Encyclopedia, but I would contend that this is not one of them.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Using Humberto Fontova

The tone of this article strikes me as a bit too hagiographic. I added the following to the single paragraph of criticisms of his legacy:

Humberto Fontova describes his apparent thirst for killing: (1)

"When you saw the beaming look on Che's face as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad," said a former Cuban political prisoner Roberto Martin-Perez, to your humble servant here, "you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara." As commander of the La Cabana execution yard, Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man (or boy) by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Che's second-story office in Havana’s La Cabana prison had a section of wall torn out so he could watch his darling firing-squads at work.

This was removed within a day or so by User:Redthoreau, who cited WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue as the policies justifying removal. I suggest that the highly negative view of Guevara presented by Fontova is neither the view of only a tiny minority (WP:Undue), nor a conclusion that could not be reached objectively (WP:NPOV). On the claim of WP:Fringe, Fontova is something of a polemicist, but even his critics acknowledge (as cited in his own Wikipedia entry) "that 'taken in selective doses', [Fontova's] book puts 'some well-placed holes in Che’s presumed humanism and military competence." I suggest that the Fontova quote injects some much-needed balance into the article. At the very least, it illustrates a very negative and not uncommon view of his legacy -- and this section was, after all, about his legacy. Yaush (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)'

WP:VERIFY ---> Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources.
• Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
• Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Hello Yaush. As the editor who reverted your insertion of information from a Fontova web editorial calling Guevara a "Guerrilla Doofus and Murdering Coward" in the title, I wanted to address an array of issues related to Humberto Fontova's exclusion as a source for this article. Of note, the below comes from someone who is very familiar with Fontova's work and owns/have read his books and writings on the subject:

(a) Previous WP:Consensus ~ The issue of including Fontova in the article pops up once every year or two when an editor comes across one of his web essays and thus arrives here at the talk page upset that this article is obviously "hagiographical" in comparison to Fontova's unashamedly negative editorials. However, Fontova's works, which are almost universally written in an hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone, have been repeatedly rejected in the article and on the talk page going back as far as ---> June of 2005. Moreover, long time established editors such as Jmabel compared it in August of 2005 to "citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon" - while Polaris999 ---> shown here, a key early author of this article, noted in 2008 that Fontova's "bombastic tone" with "puerile" book title (i.e. the useful idiots who idolize him), would make it "a travesty that he would be cited as an authoritative source in any encyclopedia."

(b) WP:NPOV ~ Fontova writes in a bombastically polemic and editorialized style, while referring to those people whom disagree with him as "dingbats", "moonbats", "useful idiots", "imbeciles", "morons", and "boobs" etc. His near weekly anti-Che editorials are written solely on hyper-partisan right-wing blogs and websites for the purpose of attacking Guevara, and explicitly exclude all information and context that is contrary to that narrative. Another tactic Fontova employs is to take an accepted fact about Guevara, and then lace it with a barrage of sophomoric insults and innuendo - unbecoming of anyone who would be utilized as a encyclopedic reference. For instance, Fontova's barrage of hyperbole leads him to specifically describe Guevara as an "assassin", "sadist", "bumbler", "fool", and "whimpering-sniveling-blubbering coward" who is "revered by millions of imbeciles." Other descriptions that Fontova often lobs against Guevara is that he was "shallow", "boorish", "epically stupid", "a fraud", a "murdering swine", an "intellectual vacuum", and an "insufferable Argentine jackass ---> article. Now admittedly, a fair number of objective criticisms can be lobbed against Che Guevara (and are in the present article), without having to frame them in an overtly subjective manner with large doses of profanity, ad hominems and sarcasm. Fontova is literally the textbook epitome of violating WP:POV and more importantly, is not considered one of the "main scholars and specialists on the issue" per Wiki policy.

(c) WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE ~ Setting aside his immature vernacular and the fact that Fontova (---> pictured here on c-span wearing his crossed out Che t-shirt) has previously described himself as being ---> "incorrigibly incorrect" on his own website; Fontova often reports on unverifiable events whose only source is himself. As someone who has tried to track down sourcing for some of his more "exceptional claims" per WP:Verify, it is frustrating as he'll often send you in a circle by citing his own book, which will then cite his own web essay, which will not have any citations at all. There are also dozens of unsavory quotes that Fontova exclusively attributes to Guevara, which do not appear in any other publication before 2005 when he began writing on the topic (38 years after Che's death). Predictably these quotes are now parroted by an array of writers who dislike Guevara, but their original sourcing always leads back to Fontova, with no original primary source given. 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. This is important because many of Fontova's claims do not appear in any of the other 120 + books on Guevara = (his argument of why this is would be that there has been a conspiracy of silence amongst 90 % of the World's press and publishers) - but Wikipedia does not grant Historically revisionist conspiracies the same coverage as other sources.

(d) WP:Reliable & WP:SOURCE ~ To those who may question whether I (along with Rolf Potts & Dow Jones Newswires' Michael Casey who have written on Fontova's style) am merely misrepresenting the facts out of context, or that maybe Fontova's work hasn't gone mainstream simply because of low exposure, it might be relevant to ask if his work fits the description of someone to cite in an Encyclopedia? What is indisputable is the fact that as a blogger Fontova has done all of the following:   uploaded ---> spoof mocked posters of Che,   posted pictures of a dead Guevara coupled with the offer that we ---> "celebrate the picture above!",   made fun of Che's daughter Aleida Guevara for being overweight by saying that she ---> "oinks" instead of speaks,   uploaded a t-shirt with President Barack Obama's face morphed as Guevara with the title ---> "I’ve Chenged",   posted an execution photo of Guevara with the description ---> "Murdering, Cowardly, Bumbling Swine",   referred to himself as a ---> "raving crackpot" in relation to his work with the "No Che Day" campaign - held on what he describes as "the glorious anniversary of Che's whacking",   referred to the day Guevara was killed as ---> "a GLORIOUS Anniversary!!",   and lamented that it was ---> "Too bad Cuba had a Batista instead of a Pinochet in 1958" - who in his words (with relation to Pinochet's suppression of opposition) "managed the messy business with (only) 3,000 dead" - which is ironically about 2,800 more deaths than the anti-Che Free Society Project even attributes to Guevara.

(Question) ~ Now with all of that said, would any editor like to provide rationale for why the above would not disqualify him from being used as an authoratative Encyclopedic source on the general topic of Che Guevara?

Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the Iraq war, there are many well written and thoroughly researched essays describing George W Bush, Tony Blair, and my own country, Australia's, Prime Minister, John Howard, as murderers and war criminals. Many of these have been written by well known writers. None of this material is in their respective Wikipedia articles. Why do it for Che? HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The linked Fontova essay, which I acknowledge was highly polemical, was my first exposure to Fontova's work. It was not, however, my first exposure to writings critical of Guevarez, and I found the Martin-Perez quote interesting and relevant. I thought it nicely encapsulated the brutal side of Guevarez. Do you disbelieve that Guevarez had a brutal side, or that Martin-Perez actually said what was attributed him by Fontova, or that Martin-Perez really believed it?

I'm also not quite sure what George Bush, Tony, Blair, or John Howard have to do with it. If there is a credible argument that they are war criminals or murderers, seriously advanced by a non-tiny intellectual community, then shouldn't that appear in their biographies? Or are you asserting that the highly negative view of Guevarez reflected in the quote is not serious held or is held only by a tiny intellectual community? Yaush (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see well attributed positive AND negative comments about all the people listed above. I simply know that it's not going to happen any time soon with the Bush, Blair and Howard articles. I guess this is at partly because of WP:BLP. For it to appear in this article seems a classic example of the intrinsic biases in Wikipedia. We can say nastier things about dead people, can't we? Maybe the other articles will swing that way after their deaths. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yaush, if this was your "first exposure" to Fontova's work, then I would suggest in the future being a little more familiar with an author before you just uncritically accept their views and insert them into a public Encyclopedia. It would also help your case if you didn't continually misspell the subjects name 3 times in one paragraph (i.e. "Guevarez"). As for this particular Fontova quote and remark attributed to Martin-Perez, the fact that Che's office (now open to the public) was on the first floor in a one story building, makes the rest of the quote highly suspect. But this is the problem when you have an author such as Fontova who has not set foot in Cuba in 49 years and never set foot in La Cabaña, writing about the topic. As for the former political prisoner Roberto Martin Perez, he was (according to the New York Times) the son of a high-ranking Batista officer who was jailed in Cuba from 1959-1987 for "his involvement in a conspiracy against Fidel Castro organized by the Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo" ---> article. Yet somehow Perez escaped the "brutal Che" that he claims just wanted to shoot everyone like him - ironically this is the same for Fontova's own father who was imprisoned briefly and released as well. Furthermore, Perez's wife since 1987 is Ninoska Pérez Castellón ---> article a notable anti-Castro exile and radio host for Radio Marti & Radio Mambi, along with a founding member of the Cuban Liberty Council, whose goal is the overthrow of the Castro regime - i.e. hardly a disinterested party. Lastly, to answer your specific question, yes Fontova's "highly negative views" are only "serious held by a tiny intellectual community". There are around 100 books on Che Guevara, and Fontova's synopsis severely differs with ALL of them (Fontova proudly acknowledges this fact, and like most historical revisionists - prides himself on being the only one with the previously unreported and usually unreferenced "truth"). Moreover, his unprofessional screeds and vernacular are the textbook definition of WP:Fringe from a Wiki standpoint - because of both style and content. Fontova's even makes extraordinary claims that the anti-Che writer Álvaro Vargas Llosa (cited in the current article's 'Legacy' section) won't touch. If you are truly interested in expanding your knowledge on Che Guevara, I would recommend one of the three definitive biographies on him ~ Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson, Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda, or Guevara, Also Known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II. All contain an array of both positive and negative aspects in their portrayals.

HiLo48, the specific articles on "George Bush, Tony, Blair, or John Howard" would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not really be relevant here. The only analogous parallel that could possibly be drawn is the fact that Guevara signed an estimated 156 death warrants after reviewing the appealed convictions handed out by 3-5 person revolutionary tribunals --- while --- George W. Bush as Governor of Texas signed 153 death warrants after reviewing their last appeal ---> article. Of note, you would be hard pressed to find any Wiki editor who would support using words like "fanatical terrorist", "butcher", or "killing machine" for Bush in his article (myself included) ... terms that are present in this one with relation to Che.

Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Che Guevara and race

Anyone want to incorporate this section or information from Che Guevara and race into this article? Should it at least be in the "see also" section? People seem to think he was a mean ol' racist so they can just read and decide for themselves. Richard Cane (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation of "Hasta la Victoria Siempre"

As far as I know, the translation of Che Guevara's motto on the Che Guevera article page is incorrect. The current translation reads "Until the everlasting victory always". The literal translation is actually "Onward to victory". Can anyone (preferably someone who's first language is Spanish) confirm this? Apoorva.karan.rai (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The literal translation would be "Until Victory, Always (, Che)", as this was the signing of a letter. I used a capital "V" for Victory, as he was referring to the "everlasting victory" of the current translation. In any case, I think the idea is quite clear and the "everlasting" addenda can be dropped. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apoorva & IANV, as I am sure you both know, precise linguistic conversions are hard to come by when translating from one language to another, and sometimes merely lining the words up and translating them in sequence causes some of the ‘texture’ (for loss of a better word) to be lost. For instance, if you were literally translating the phrase "Hasta la Victoria Siempre" it would most closely resemble "Until (the) Victory Always". However, depending on the surrounding context and intent it could also mean "Until the Everlasting Victory" or "Ever Onward to Victory". In Guevara’s case, he used the phrase as a signoff for his letters to denote two separate commands (1) To always strive towards (what he saw as) the final victory over global imperialism & capitalism & (2) The proclamation that this victory if achieved would be an eternal (i.e. everlasting) one. Thus, comes the nuance of whether to mention the singular "Victory" and reaching for it "Always" (until it is no longer needed) or the victory’s "Everlasting" nature. The argument could be made that incorporating them both and using "Until the Everlasting Victory Always" is closest to the ultimate idea that Guevara was conveying with the phrase, although yes if you used an Español-English dictionary you would not get both meanings simultaneously. However, I am open to others ideas on how best to express this, as it has been something I have pondered in the past.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1) I understood the "Everlasting Victory" translation as a means of signfying the ultimate nature of the victory Che referred to. And I agree with this translation, although I think it is somewhat unnecessary.

2) But, if I'm understanding your comment right, Thoreau, you are suggesting that "Everlasting Victory" can also be a translation for "Victoria Siempre", which is not, in any case or context. It simply has no gramatical sense. So the nuance (2) is mistaken. (Add: "Everlasting Victory" would be "Victoria Sempiterna" in Spanish.)

3) Although I do not master the English language, it seems to me that the phrase "Ever Onward to Victory" can be inferred without difficulty as a nuance of the phrase "Until (the) Victory, Always", as it is the case in Spanish. In that case, the most "literal" translation would be fine enough.

4) Not a serious proposal. Think of it as a signoff: the absolute contextual translation would be "Until victory, Yours"

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

IANVS, I appreciate your reply. For clarification, my (2) was not in respect to the literal translation, but from the larger context of when and how Guevara would use the phrase (which in addition to signing off with it, he utilized it in speeches, writings etc). He is not technically using the word “Everlasting”, but I would contend that he knows that for instance in his farewell letter to Fidel (where he signs off this way), that Fidel is aware of how he is using the phrase (in a larger context). For instance, had he said "continue marching always", he would obviously not literally be suggesting that people keep walking, but that they forge forward through the obstacles in their way. It seems that we both agree that “Until Victory Always” is the most precise, and I am not against changing it if others share our rationale. However, do you feel that we would be preserving the full meaning?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't doubt about the everlasting nature of the "Victory", as used by Che. But that's me. I'd prefer to simply use a capital "V" for Victory. And a capital "A" for Always (in fact, both are words plenty of significance in context, as you pointed out). But, if you consider it is appropriate to underline the "everlasting" aspect explicitly, for people not familiar with the context, I'm not against it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Che Guevara - "Intellectual" ?

Isn't the characterisation a tad far-fetched? (in the introduction) Now I am a scholar of critical theory, which always comes with a healthy serving of Marxism, but I don't think we could really qualify Guevara as a person of intellectual standing. Just putting it out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvaix (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite dying in his 30s, Guevara did write several published books including some on economic and military theory, some on contemporary history, and also a ton of memoir. He also had a noted interest in philosophy, languages, and education. He was educated as a doctor, and had jobs ranging from Military leader to Minister of Industry to head of the National Bank. While not a classic tenure-track academic intellectual, he would probably be acknowledged by most as a person of at least some "intellectual standing". Had he not made the decision to quit politics and return to armed revolution back in 1965, ten bucks says he would've eventually quit politics and settled down as a professor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.57.26 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Marxist Humanism a religion?

Recently an editor attempted to add Marxist Humanism to the info box for Che under the header for religion. The question here is very, very simple, is Marxist Humanism a religion? If it is, then the info box should simply state “Marxist Humanism”, not “None. Marxist Humanism.” If Marxist Humanism is not a religion, then the info box should state simple “None.” When I attempted to remove “None. Marxist Humanism.” (twice), I was accused of edit warring with the admonition that there were three, count ‘em up, three references. But do any of three references offered up by this editor refer to Marxist Humanism as a religion? Just because one can spew forth a gaggle of tangential references about a subject in no way means that any of them are necessary applicable. But in any case it’s irrelevant. Marxist Humanism is not a religion, certainly not in the classical sense (if it is please, please do show me the source), and therefore does not belong in the info box, as info boxes are currently configured. Anyway, as I stated in one of my edit summaries, “Explanations can, and should, be done in the article, not the info box, nicht wahr?” Please do so there. Hammersbach (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a religion to me. The one source we can all see doesn't exactly call it a religion. It's more a matter of overblown prose. The other two sources are inaccessible to most of us. On the other hand, do we actually have a source confirming "none" as his religion? He would have been raised a Catholic, but if and where that faded away is unclear. Is there really any point to this entry in the Infobox at all? User:HiLo48 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I would dispute your contention that the question is as simple as you state. However, to answer it: No "Marxist humanism" is not a religion. However, it is not listed as Che’s religion, which is listed as "None" and then includes "Marxist Humanist" in parenthesis to add some context to the "none" – as obviously a Marxist humanist would not adhere to any organized religion. Moreover, the previous info box before switched to this state, said "None (atheist)" in parenthesis as a way to assumedly add context to the "none" designation – thus, all I did with the Marxist humanist distinction is get even more specific. I would also dispute your contention that one’s philosophical beliefs are irrelevant to the unfortunately very narrow "religion" info box question. For instance, if someone were Agnostic or Confucian then obviously they would not have a "religion" per se, but it would be helpful for a potential reader to know that the aforementioned ethos’ serve in a similar fashion. As for Che, he was baptized Catholic as a infant, but raised atheist, and in the last 5 years or so of his life (where I would describe him more as an agnostic) he began to take on and espouse many Marxist humanist beliefs – which almost have a quasi-religious connotation because of their idealism, concentration on secular morality, and devotion to self-sacrifice etc. As for references, Michael Löwy has written extensively on Che’s Marxist humanism – particularly in his book - The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare. Peter McLaren has also written about it in his book Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution. If you read both/either of these texts (as I have) then you would realize that "Religion = None (Marxist humanist)" is the most accurate way to classify Guevara – in an admittedly imperfect info box category.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's always the option of not using that "admittedly imperfect info box category" at all, and including much of what you have written above in the article text. Let those readers who really do want to know this stuff find it in the text, rather than see a shallow distortion in the Infobox. (Can anyone tell that I'm not exactly a fan of Infoboxes?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible misquote in the account of Guevara's execution.

In the article: Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked by a Bolivian soldier if he was thinking about his own immortality. "No", he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."

I lived in Bolivia at the time, and Guevara was quoted in Bolivian newspapers at the time as having replied "...la imortalidad del burro." (burro means donkey, NOT revolution. I remember it well, because I was intrigued by Guevara's statement and asked my father, a US State Dept. Foreign Service Officer stationed in La Paz in 1967, what the quote meant. At the time I was told that "La imortalidad del burro" is a cliche in spanish. 184.4.209.151 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• The source for "revolution" is http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,942333,00.html
• You'll have to dig up the old newspapers and/or scan them and/or find microfilms at libraries - Or see if people on the Spanish Wikipedia have access to them.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation 139 about the use of atomic war

I have read several postings on the internet that are referring to citation 139 of the Wiki article. Many people who do not like Che Guevara are using this quote from the article and expanding on it dramatically. Here is the quote directly from the Wiki page: "While expounding on the incident later, Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression", would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims."[139]" Well, I have the book from that citation, (Guevara, Ernesto; Deutschmann, David (1997). Che Guevara Reader: Writings by Ernesto Che Guevara on Guerrilla Strategy, Politics & Revolution. Ocean Press. ISBN 1875284931.), in my hand and no where on pg.304 or pages near it, does it discuss the possibilities of atomic war. In fact, this section speaks to Cuba getting fair prices in the world market for its sugar. This sentence from the Wiki page should be deleted as it's reference is false. People are expanding on this false citation and combining it with citation 138 over the internet in various articles with statements such as "If the missiles had remained (in Cuba), we would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims." Stop disinformation and prove your statements with legitimate facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.198.118 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP 71, and nice to meet you. According to --> this link via Google books, the passage is indeed on pg 304 of the aforementioned book. Perhaps you have a different edition? Now I don’t doubt your assertion that Che’s ideological foes utilize this passage to present him in a negative light, but he never specifies whether these "millions" would come from Cuba's own missiles ... or from retaliatory "imperialist" atomic aggression by the U.S. upon Cuba/The Soviet Union (thus there are several ways to read the sentence). For instance, the year before on August 8th 1961 during --> his speech to the ministerial meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council (CIES), in Punta del Este, Uruguay - Guevara stated: "Cuba hopes that her children will see a better future, and that victory will not have to be won at the cost of millions of human lives destroyed by the atomic bomb." Moreover, as the current article already states, Che was particularly horrified in 1959 upon visiting Hiroshima, Japan – where the U.S. had in fact detonated an atomic bomb – so it is not clear to what extent he believed the U.S. would be willing to do the same again against Cuba for instance.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP 71, and nice to meet you. While I also don't doubt your assertion that Che’s ideological foes utilize this passage to present him in a negative light, I equally have no doubt that Che’s ideological admirers are doing their best to mitigate the damage of such an eye-opening statement. An example of this can be taken from the reply above where two different events are related in an attempt to show Che’s aversion to the nuclear option. But it is important to point out that both these public events occurred before the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. Che’s statements after the event shed a bit more light on “whether these ‘millions’ would come from Cuba's own missiles ... or from retaliatory ‘imperialist’ atomic aggression by the U.S. upon Cuba/The Soviet Union…” Sam Russell, a writer for the socialist publication Daily Worker, conducted an interview with Guevara a few weeks after the crisis. In this interview he quotes Che as saying that “if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have been fired.” Of note, while Castro is alleged to have written to Kruschev requesting that the nuclear weapons be used if Cuba was invaded, Che does not offer any such qualifier to his declaration. Russell goes on to say that Che was extremely critical of the “peaceful parliamentary strategy for power” of western communist parties. Russell concluded that Che was “clearly a man of great intelligence, though I thought he was crackers about the way he went on about the missiles.” So we are presented with two different Ches, pre-crisis and post-crisis. Perhaps we should add the salient elements from the Russell interview to the article and let the reader determine where Che believed these "millions of atomic war victims" would come from, victims whose lost lives he felt “the victory of Socialism is well worth”. Hammersbach (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

propaganda

The article reads much like a Communist propaganda piece and is not from a NPOV. --41.151.153.169 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Such criticisms are pretty useless without specifics. What exactly reads like communist propaganda, and what facts (if any) do you think are omitted which warrant inclusion? -R. fiend (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

IP 41, without any specific objections backed up by WP:Reliable sources per our additional policies of WP:Undue & WP:NPOV etc – your drive by denunciation of "communist propaganda" simply appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would also recommend you check the search box of archived talk pages up above, to see if perhaps your concerns have already been addressed or discussed in the past and possibly rejected. Now obviously as with most polarizing figures, internet editorials can be located that cast a range of polemical aspersions – but our objective here is to utilize the academic journal articles, mainstream biographies and news sources in order to present the material in as neutral a fashion as possible. Those possessing passionate politically-driven opinions about a subject (from either end of the political spectrum) can usually find this Wiki practice frustrating, as our material won't in their view "accurately" tell the "real story" about the aforementioned hero/freedom fighter-villain/terrorist.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This information should be a part of the analysis of Che's life. He personally ordered the execution of many of his opponents, and others. Redthoreau - Since you are a Wikipedia "God" of enormous power and influence, and since you have a phD, perhaps you should consider the non-inclusion of information like this as part of 41.151.153.169's criticism that the Wikipedia entry for Che reads like a Communist propaganda piece. 99.113.217.30 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 99, first off nobody here is a "Wikipedia God", I am simply a committed editor of the overall Wiki-project like everybody else. Any "power" I may hold exists only in your imagination, and any "influence" I may wield would only be derived from others appreciation of my attempts to imperfectly uphold Wiki policies. Now to the actual content of your suggestion, I appreciate your specifics and agree that this should be included in the article. However, it doesn't take a "Ph.D." (or divine powers) to have read the article and see in reference --> #103 that we already included the 2005 version of this pdf from the Cuba Archive (via Armando Lago) seen --> here which documented "216 victims". Thus, all you have done here is give us the 2009 updated version from the Cuba Archive which actually decreases Che's "victim" total from the former number of 216 to the new total of 144 (22 in the Sierra Maestra + 17 after Battle of Santa Clara + 105 at La Cabaña). As a result, the article which presently states "with Guevara's jurisdictional death total at La Cabaña ranging from 55 to 164", will now have to be corrected and updated to "55 to 105". Thus, in your attempt to support IP 41's contention that the article reads like "communist propaganda", you have given us a new version of an already utilized source that actually lowers Che's maximum death total by 59 people at La Cabaña and 72 overall (216-144). Now IP 44 might contend that you just made the article read MORE like "communist propaganda", but I won't, because my only concern is for representing the published figures from reliable sources in accordance with Wiki policy.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anderson quote

I do think there are two sides to Che, but I do think the quote-box in the "La Cabaña, land reform, and literacy" section by Jon Lee Anderson should be worked into the text. As a lone text-box, I think it gives undue weight to the position that he played a small, judicious role in the judicial and extrajudicial executions there. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Anderson's quote gives the impression that Che's role was "small"; in fact he isn't even addressing the size or scope of the executions, but rather the novelty of them under the circumstances and the reasoning behind their usage. Nobody denies the executions took place, but the issue seems to revolve around whether capital punishment was warranted for the condemned. Anderson, who spent five years researching the issue and who has written what most find to be the definitive biography on the subject, is the ideal source (I believe) for a pull-quote on the matter, if anyone would be. The quote format also lets the reader know that this isn't Wikipedia editorially taking the stance, but Anderson himself.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)