Che Guevara is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed March 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2008 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Biography / South America B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force South American military history task force

Archives /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6, /Archive 7, /Archive 8, /Archive 9, /Archive 10, /Archive 11, /Archive 12 /Archive 13 /Archive 14 /Archive 15 /Archive 16 /Archive 17 Archives (1 – 5), Archives (6 – 10), Archives (11 – 15) Archives (16 – 20), Mega Table of Contents for all Archives (1 through 17)

Template:Communism Portal selected Template:WP1.0

Cpmpleted Discussions from April 2 - May 23 2008 on this talk page have been moved to Archive 17   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, one last note before I belatedly go to bed...

I've repeatedly expressed my surprise at the sources used here. I'd have thought the three main biographies were Anderson, Castañeda, and Taibo. I've been under the illusion that Taibo's is not translated, but have just realized I'm wrong about that. NB that these are all more or less center-to-left-leaning authors, but far to the right of (and in a fundamental sense unsympathetic to) Che. Anderson's basically a liberal (in the classical sense of the term). Castañeda's a former leftie who's spent the past decade or so moving rapidly to the right. Taibo II is probably the furthest left of the three, and indeed he co-wrote a book with Subcomandante Marcos.

I'd suggest that it would be good to add into the mix at least one source that is both scholarly and (basically) sympathetic. I remember seeing Jean Franco present a magnificent critique of all three of the above biographies, but I don't think it's ever been published. (I do have a draft copy myself.) Otherwise, there's Mike Gonzalez's Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution (2004). I haven't read this, but Gonzalez is both a member of the SWP and a sound scholar.

Meanwhile, Hugh Thomas's Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom is also, as I understand it, a pretty basic source that should be used. Other writers on Cuba that are worth reading include Lou Perez, Toni Kapcia, and Román de la Campa, but I'm not sure off the top of my head whether they've written anything on Guevara. For the exile position, i.e. quite squarely anti-Castro but from a scholarly point of view, there'd be Roberto González Echevarría or Gustavo Pérez Firmat, but I'm likewise fairly sure they've written little if anything on Guevara.

NB, as should be obvious, I'm much more familiar with literary and cultural critics than with historians. And NB also that Cuba is not my particular area. (Which is probably a good thing.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as I mentioned in an edit summary... I'm surprised there's no mention of Régis Debray for the Bolivian section. He has had volume two of his autobiography just published, if I remember right... I saw a review in the LRB. And he was probably the most significant of the European champions of Guevarism. -- jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JbMurray I agree with your contention that the 3 primary credible biographers are (1) Jon Lee Anderson, (2) Jorge G. Castaneda, and (3) Paco Ignacio Taibo. I have all 3 of their books ~ (1) Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (2) Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, and (3) Guevara, Also Known as Che. For a complete list of books related directly to Che Guevara see This list. I have nearly all of these and would be more than happy to look up specific citations. What do you believe would be the best way to incorporate these 3 texts in unison with one another ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) Regarding those three biographies (and I would probably throw in the Gonzalez, as well as any manifestly anti-Che source that is also reliable--none comes immediately to mind), I'd have thought the most important thing is to cross-check them when it comes to controversial or potentially controversial aspects of Che's life. I've dug up the Franco talk I mentioned and here, for what it's worth, is her brief account of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the major three:

Paco Taibo sticks closest to Che’s own words, citing copiously from his letters and writings and claiming that Che is “this story’s second narrator, the one who matters.” However since Che own words alone represent the voice of truth, the narrative breaks down whenever Che is without words.. Referring to his last hours, Taibo writes, “Now, for the first time the biographer will have to rely only on unfriendly witnesses, many of whom had axes to grind and a vested interests in distorting events and constructing a false account.” In this version, the biographer is unable to contemplate ambiguity,or contradiction and uses selected citation to monumentalize the past.

Anderson who had the advantage of having read Che’s private diaries, follows the well worn rules of U.S. journalism in which everything must pass through the sieve of personality. “What had compelled this son of an aristocratic Argentine family, a medical school graduate, to try and change the world?” . In his search for Che, the man, Anderson does not shun the superfluous ; on the contrary it is essential to his narrative - Che losing his temper and smacking his baby’s bottom, his favorite television programs, the name of his dog. He concludes that “along with his mistakes what is most remembered about Che is his personal example, embodying faith, willpower and sacrifice.“ The continuing significance of Guevara is that the revolutionary values of “self-sacrifice, honesty and dedication to a cause” “have transcended time and ideology to nurture and inspire new generations of fighters and dreamers.” Certain values while embodied in Che can be abstracted from their specificity to become a kind of gold standard for the individual.

Castañeda ‘s biography is a political biography that focuses on y the politics of cold war confrontation and while not shunning personal detail (did Tania sleep with Che?), he is above all interested in the political intricacies of Cuban-Soviet relations, and Cuban- U.S. relations and the exacerbation of the cold war that they implied. Che’s story is told as one of political disillusionment. That is perhaps why Castañeda polishes off the campaign in the Sierra Madre and Escambray in a mere twenty three pages, in contrast to Paco Taibo and Anderson both of whom devote nearly two hundred pages to the revolutionary campaign.

Hope this too-rapid comment is of some help. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have a website hey-che.com what deals about the impact of Che.. Could this be a usefull link for the che wikipedia section.. cheers heycheHeyche (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the History Channel released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend that all editors watch it if they have the chance, as it helps give you a basic overview of his life and the accomplishments/controversy's surrounding it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those that speak Spanish ... the Che Guevara en Español article was a wealth of information that could possibly be incorporated in this article or other Che related articles.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there being both a Cuban & Argentinean flag in Che's infobox. Why is it no longer there? He did have Cuban citizenship right? ʄ!•¿talk? 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that both flags were included. I agreed that they should be since he held citizenship in both nations. However at the time I believe another editor disagreed and thus removed the Cuban one. Do any other editors have a view on this?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a view on this and I don't think the Cuban flag should appear in the info box, just because someone has dual citizenship doesn't make them of that nationality, i have citizenship in multiple countries but I am still a New Zealander, so the last editor was correct in removing the flag as it does not really apply in this sense. Taifarious1 05:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think questions of nationality are pretty irrelevant as they mean different things to different people, the important thing was it alerted the reader to a country that he was affiliated with. I mean it's only two flags, not six or something. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it more, I retract my earlier statement, I think it would be best to add the Cuba Flag to the info box, the bulk of his revolutionary work took place there and he is also buried there, so I think its entirely suitable to have it in there. ;) Taifarious1 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Noted and seeing no objection I will add it back.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting the best of me. In the third paragraph of the introduction, it currently reads:

 As a result of his death, romantic visage, invocation to armed class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by "moral" rather than "material" incentives [2], he 

Is it one "his", a colon after his, or something else? It just doesn't seem right to me.

Thanks in advance for all the help!

Jmole (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thats really uncanny, as I was reading through the article, that exact line stumped me as well, im currently trawling for grammar and spelling issues and adding refs under cite tags, but I was trying to figure this one out, but I haven't been able to, ill have a look into it, but i think its easier to look into it in context so im reading through the ref given to understand it more, if i figure it out ill let you know. Taifarious1 05:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stated source is in reference to the last 2 parts of the sentence not the full thing (which is still ok as you don't want a plethora of sources in the lead). Jmole, is your question whether the grammar is correct?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, it's a grammar question. It just doesn't flow. Jmole (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor adjusting ... let me know what you think.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is much easier to understand, certainly for me anyway, I have fixed a few minor grammar mistakes in the article myself that seemed quite esoteric so to the average viewer I think the change will make much clearer. Taifarious1 00:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, guys! Jmole (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a typo here- a common one that can be really irritating: See 4th paragraph "... Alberto Korda photograph of him entitled Guerrillero Heroico (shown), was declared "the most famous photograph in the world."[4] You meant to us the word "titled". The word entitled actually refers to when one has a right to something... an entitlement. Somehow this word has been absorbed into the American lexicon to appear synonymous with the word "titled". Surely the words titled/entitled cannot mean the same thing.

en·ti·tle

Function: transitive verb 1 : to give a title to : designate link. "entitled" is the correct term.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by the Maryland Institute of Art should be added to was declared "the most famous photograph in the world."[4], to make things clearer. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara was born on the 14th of June, not May as the article suggests. This fact is found throughout printed texts on Che Guevara and Cuba. As for online sources, en.wikiquote.org indicates that Guevara's birth certificate says he was born on June 14. The correct date is also given within Wikipedia in the 2007 Schools section at http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/c/Che_Guevara.htm. I hope that the glaring error from this entry can be corrected and remain correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.193.195 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Biographer Jon Lee Anderson interviewed Che's mother discovered (in the late 90's) that he was in fact born on May 14 a month earlier - and his Mother had the birth certificate falsified so as to make it appear that her and her husband, Che's father were married before consummating. This was because Che's mother was 3 months pregnant when she married and thus they moved his birth up one month, and told family members he was born 2 months premature.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Redthoreau! That is some fine investigation, mainly by Jon Lee Anderson, but your explanation was superb. Taifarious1 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "superb" the appropriate word here? Might not "absurd" be more applicable given the fact that Jon Lee Anderson could not possibly have

"interviewed Che's mother (in the late 90's) and found out that he was in fact born on May 14 a month earlier - and she had the birth certificate falsified so as to make it appear that her and her husband, Che's father were married before consummating. This was because Che's mother was 3 months pregnant when she married and thus they moved his birth up one month, and told family members he was born 2 months premature.'" ?

The reason that Jon Lee Anderson could not possibly have conducted such an interview with Che's mother, Celia de la Serna, in the late 1990's is a simple one: She died on 18 May 1965!!  (And, just for the record, Jon Lee Anderson never conducted any interview with her at any other time either, nor does he pretend to have done so.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I meant to write that Jon Lee Anderson through conducting interviews found out such a fact (that Che's mother admitted to falsifying his birth certificate). The fact is still correct that he was born on May 14 ... not June 14 ... although yes I miswrote that JLA spoke to his Mother to find this out. Polaris do you dispute that he was born on May 14 or that JLA found this out (see pg 5 of his book if curious) ? Either way nice to see you out of hibernation ... even though you only did so to insult me. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you mean page 5? What edition of the book are you using? My edition, ISBN 0802116000, has no such statement by Anderson on that page. Could you check the page number? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the printed edition (which you must have) it would be page 3 while it seems that the online version link has it on page 5. My apologies for not noting the discrepancy.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know it is true? Jon Anderson indicates in his rather novelistic opening to his biography of Guevara that this is true, but because someone he interviewed said that, does that make it true? It may be "family lore", for example. Or the astrologer mentioned likes to tell the story, his moment of glory. Is there other evidence? (Not that this is that important one way or the other.) –Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "know" for sure that it is true as I wasn’t there (this applies to almost everything I read in a book) ... all I can do is weigh the evidence and credibility of the author (Jon Lee Anderson) and the fact that he spent 5 years researching Guevara all across the globe (Cuba, Argentina, Russia, Bolivia, Congo, U.S.) --- was given rare access to Che's wife & family, Che's personal diaries, and sealed Cuban documents --- spent several months living amongst Che's family in Argentina --- and thus compiled an 800 page book with 50 pages of footnotes and accompanying sources. It is because of this, that I estimate and trust that Jon Lee Anderson (an investigative journalist by trade) would want to make certain that he was 100 % sure of such a fact - that he clearly states in the opening pages of his biography. In addition, I believe that JLA would most likely have had to of received several corroborating sources in placing his credibility on the line by making this ‘historical correction’, which in some ways could even be viewed as being "offensive" to Che's family.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not in the same category as a statement that has multiple, reliable, unbiased sources, it it? Then you could know with more confidence. As User:Jbmurray says somewhere, Anderson is one of those biographers who wants to interject the psychodynamics of his subject into the history (Jbmurray didn't use those exact words), but what is the point of that "fact" supposed to be? What is the conclusion the reader is supposed to draw? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since JLA's book was published in 1997, I would imagine that any corroborating sources would have had to of been published after that date - and I am not sure how I would decipher whether those sources were "echoing" JLA's account, or their own. If this is actually a fact that you or other editors question the validity of ... I would be more than willing to seek out further supporting evidence. Are you stating that you personally dispute his findings or have you found evidence/motive to call it into question? Also are you aware of anyone from Che's family, other biographers, or the Che Guevara Institute disputing this claim ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it plays into the personalization through depicting incidents that then may leave the reader with a conclusion that User:Jbmurray was describing in Anderson that Jbmurray does not like. And it is the "echoing" process that you describe above that enables and proliferates pseudo facts. There is his birth certificate that gives a date. The birth certificated is substantiated. Do you have any reliable, unbiased, third-party evidence that substantiates Anderson's claim that could have been derived from "family lore" or an interview with the astrologer feeding into his role in the myth of the story? (Do we know where Anderson got that, other than conjure?) –Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) According to JLA the 'substantiated' birth certificate was "falsified" by a "doctor friend" to "avoid scandal." JLA also states that the family moved away to Misiones during the pregnancy and didn't allow family to see Che until he was already a month old. With regards to comments made by User:Jbmurray I don't believe it is clear that Jbmurray questions the validity of JLA, although yes he may have critiqued his style of delivery. If JbMurray (a poster's whose intellect I highly respect) does question this birth date, then I would of course cede to his judgment on the matter (however I am unaware that he actually does) and would be uncomfortable speaking for him. Moreover, am I to impugn from your comments that you question the use of May 14 as his date of birth?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JbMurray objects to the use of personal tidbits in a biography in an attempt to define character by this method. Anderson opens the biography as if he were writing a novel with this uncited biographical tidbit. The point of citations is to remove the necessity of having to take an author's word that his information is correct by allowing readers to evaluation the source for themselves. By opening the biography with this, Anderson gives this tidbit undue emphasis. What is the relevance of this information to the biography? Does it convey information that cannot be conveyed in any other way, e.g. by a cited source? (And please do not change the wording of posts here.) –Mattisse (Talk) 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that this point made by Jon Lee Anderson lacks sufficient credence for inclusion/correction then I would suggest you remove it. I feel there is a necessary level of credibility for inclusion ... but understand if you do not.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it impossible to participate in this discussion, or any other in which RedThoreau is involved on this Talk Page, because he habitually changes the entries he has previously made on this discussion page whenever it suits his interest. Isn't there a wikipedia policy against this? If so, WHY is it never enforced on this particular Talk Page?

Here is the latest example. After I had pointed out he was in incorrect when he asserted that Jon Lee Anderson had interviewed Che's mother, he then went back and edited his previous entry on the Talk Page, i.e. the one about which I had commented (and which he had made in response to User: 70.241.193.195), in an indexterous attempt to conceal the gravity of his error. You can observe what he did here: Diffs -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris. I do not agree with your accusation of "habitually" altering my 'own words'. In this single instance, after you pointed out my instance of misspeaking, I simply corrected my error seeing that you had already quoted me in italics (which I did not edit). I thus figured that it would be obvious to any observer that you quoted me in italics and that I then went and slightly edited out the 3-4 words of mine that were in error. All of this is part of the record (as you display by pointing to the diff). To call my error one of "gravity", I find not only puzzling but disingenuous. The overall premise of my answer was in fact correct - That Jon Lee Anderson reported he was born on May 14 in the late 90's after interviews etc. The only mistake was my typo attributing this to a discussion with his mother - which I obviously know is false as I have read 20 + books on Che Guevara and am well aware of when his Mother died. Furthermore, I am unaware of any official policy governing one’s own words on talk pages (but if in fact there is one you can show me, I apologize for violating it, and will be glad to follow it in the future). I am unsure of why you have picked this opportunity to come out of hibernation, when in fact I have implored your valuable commitment to the article for several weeks (if not months). Anyone who does any investigation in our past correspondence will find that I have always been nothing but respectful, courteous, and overly complimentary of you and your editing capability. I even several times offered to edit while essentially “under your command” and following all of your suggestions. ----- I will continue to be respectful of you - as I value you as an editor, appreciate your past work on the Che article, and consider you a fair person --- regardless of how many times you insult me or impugn my integrity/capability/good faith. I have no interest in confrontation with you and hope that you will find it in yourself to place aside what I deem to be unprovoked hostility towards me.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I am posting here a verbatim excerpt from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically the section labelled "Own Comments" :

-- Polaris999 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris, I appreciate you pointing that out and will in the future do my best to abide by their "suggestion" (I believe I am correct in interpreting that as being the “generally accepted standard” with allowed “exceptions”, and not official declarative policy) --- but nonetheless I understand the inherent implicit rationale of such a standard and if I could redo my actions, I would have inserted a [correction template]. My apologies for not abiding by this 'courtesy' and I hope that in the future you will assume good faith with regards to my actions ... as I always have with yours.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris, note that I have added back in the words and struck them out. Hope this helps.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RedThoreau: restoring the text to what you had originally written and then striking it out is a definite improvement over simply removing the words that were being discussed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could do as JbMurray suggested above and cross-referenced the citation, especially since you use it as your opening piece, just like Anderson. Anderson has an agenda, as JbMurray points out. Also, you have the wrong page number in the article reference citation. Even if you use the Amazon.com reference, which you apparently are, it is still page 5. If you look carefully at the amazon.com selection you will see this is true. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article reference uses page 3 which is the correct page # for the printed version (in my mind the better of the two to use). As for cross referencing Jorge Castaneda's "Companero" (published the same year as JLA's book in 1997) uses June 14 as the date of birth. (pg 3 as well). Thus I am unsure of how to proceed as it appears that JLA "discovered" this anecdote through his own investigation.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a difficult problem. If we had a source that mentioned Anderson's claim and still claimed that the date was June, we could quote the two as sources that disagree with each other. As far as I know we don't have such a source. It's not so difficult to word it in the text: we can state that the birth certificate says one thing and that Anderson says something else. The infobox and the first sentence of the article are the problem, because there isn't really a lot of room there to put big explanations. How about stating the date of birth as "Spring 1928" with a footnote to an explanation? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The printed version uses page 5. Please, just look at your book if you are in doubt. It starts with the first sentence of Chapter One. Very high profile. You can't miss it. Anderson is the sole source of this. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My printed version right in front of me has this on page 3. First page of the book under the heading "A Mate Plantation in Misiones". We must have different editions (although I wasn;t aware that there were). The ISBN 10 on the back of my book is 0-8021-3558-7   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As far as Anderson's own investigation, did no one in the family, relatives, best friends, cohorts, know of this previously? Frankly I can't trust the story telling of an old astrologer, especially as there is no particular point to the information. It only causes arguments, as some new editor periodically comes and changes it because there is so much evidence to the contrary. Is there some purpose service by relying solely on Anderson in this regard? –Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You are right regarding the page number. I got confused by your Amazon.com reference. I apologize. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here consider this source to be of any import? : MAJOR ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA DE LA SERNA

It was definitely written after the publication of the JLA book and by historians who are fully aware of the content of that book. In other words, despite what JLA has written about the version supposedly received from the astrologer, the official Cuban historians state in 2008 that Ernesto "Che" Guevara was born on "June 14, 1928". -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris I am not familiar with that source. But if you trust it ... then I trust your judgment. Maybe we could use June 14 ... but make a footnote of JLA claiming May 14.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source to which I personally assign great importance: the "Chronology" of Che's life prepared by his widow, Aleida March. It states:

Source URL is: Centro Che

I would like to know, please, what weight you would give to this source? -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would assign a good deal of weight to that source. It is also noteworthy that the Cuban state honors/celebrates Che's birthday on June 14 and not May 14 (now this may be a result of not wanting to point out the "sultry" detail of his Mother having the birth certificate falsified to conceal premarital sex, but nevertheless). In addition, an article from today's Sun Sentinel For his 80th birthday, Che gets a website also there is a celebration tomorrow in Argentina Argentina to Fete 80th Che Birthday. I believe that it would be most prudent to use June 14 with a footnote acknowledging JLA's findings.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In an unconnected possible irony ... I just realized that tomorrow (June 14) would have been Che's 80th birthday.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is! Perhaps we can make our best effort to figure out how to handle his birthdate in this article before that day is done. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter which day he was born, anyway? Polaris999's arguments sound good: perhaps it could just say "June 14" with a footnote to the May 14 explanation. (Or would we get a lot of driveby edits from people who have just read Anderson?) By the way, I have it on page 3 in Anderson's book; and it sounds to me as if likely Che himself didn't know his own birthdate, at least not until he was 30, so perhaps his widow didn't know either.

Perhaps (except to astrologers) the actual date is less important than whether he was born prematurely or not, since one might want to speculate whether a premature birth would have affected his health or brain development. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Coppertwig -- I personally am with you in thinking that the exact date isn't of any particular importance, but as you intuit, when we tried putting in the June 14 date without any reference to the fact that JLA says it may have been May 14, the amount of driveby edits was beyond belief. Finally, we had to add an explanatory note, and I have just found it in an older version and include it in case it may be helpful if a new note is going to be written:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&oldid=191434286     -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris I think it would be fitting if you went ahead and changed it and included the footnote. Maybe it could be a nice "symbolic" way (hopefully') to begin your resurgence in the article again.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RedThoreau, for allowing me this honor. I hope that I have followed the proper format, but if not will count on you to make the necessary corrections. ¡Feliz cumpleaños del Comandante de la América Nuestra! -- Polaris999 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! ¡Feliz consensus-building! And Che's 80th birthday and all that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph #8 of the section "After the revolution", these sentences appear:

An integral part of fostering a sense of “unity between the individual and the mass”, Guevara believed, was volunteer work and will. To display this, Guevara "led by example", working "endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane" on his day off, as did Castro.[58]

I take exception to the statement, "as did Castro". Fidel Castro performed volunteer work only on rare occasions, and always with extensive press coverage. With extremely rare exceptions, Castro's "participation" amounted to little more than brief photo ops and was in no way comparable to the strenuous efforts of Guevara who spent every Sunday morning from 6 AM to noon either cutting sugarcane, working in a textile factory (Textilera Ariguanabo), or unloading freighters at the docks. He did this even when he was so stricken with asthma that he could hardly breathe.

Furthermore, the citation [58] given for the above sentences re volunteer work is "PBS: Che Guevara, Popular but Ineffective" which reads verbatim as follows:

Popular But Ineffective

Lacking any managerial training, Ché was nevertheless named head of Cuba's central bank. Later, he became Minister of Industries. He called for the diversification of the Cuban economy, and for the elimination of what he called material incentives. Volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth. All that was needed was will. Ché led by example. He worked endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane. His good looks, acerbic humor and willingness to point out the revolution's shortcomings earned him the affection of many Cubans. But by 1963, as characterized by a CIA classified report, "Guevara... had brought... the economy to its lowest point since Castro came to power."

As is apparent, there is no reference in the PBS text to Fidel Castro having performed any volunteer work whatsoever. I therefore propose that the words "as did Castro" be expunged from the aforementioned sentence in paragraph #8 of the section "After the revolution",

I look forward to hearing the views of other editors. -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless another reference can be found to support the Castro statement, but as it stands now, i think it may have to be removed. Taifarious1 03:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Polaris and would say it should be removed. Nice work and good eye to catch that. It's nice to have you back. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Taifarious1 and RedThoreau — I shall remove it at once. :-)   -- Polaris999 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read an artical from 'Reuters' entiled "Argentina pays belated homage to 'Che' Guevara". It states that "A bronze statue of Ernesto "Che" Guevara was unveiled on Saturday [14 June 2008] in the Argentine city where he was born exactly 80 years ago, the first such monument to the revolutionary in his homeland."

I think this is information should be added to the main artical on 'Che' Guevara. This event is an important mile-stone in the legacy of Guevara as in his birth place, Argentina, he is still controversial.

The site which I read the artical from is: [1]

Thanks, --TorresE (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the request Torrese and I went ahead and added that for you with both the Reuters source and a BBC article from today. Let me know if my addition satisfies your suggestion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 11:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be fitting to place a photograph of this statue on the Legacy of Che Guevara page, don't you think? Perhaps if someone happens to come across a public domain image of it, or takes one for this purpose, he/she will kindly bring it to our attention on this Talk page. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great: this helps confirm that the birthdate is considered by reliable sources to be June 14 (if we can go with the "page last updated" date). I fixed up the formatting of the birthdate footnote(s). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esteemed Co-Editors:

Please take a look at this article, Che Guevara's Final Verdict on the Soviet Economy, and let's discuss how we can incorporate the salient points of Guevara's prescient critique of the Soviet system into this article, or perhaps create a "child" article to address the issue. I believe that the failure of any of the English-language WP articles on Guevara to adequately treat this subject — and his economic thought in general — is one of the most grievous shortcomings of our efforts to date.

Please let me know if you agree or disagree. And, in the case of those who may agree, is anyone willing to volunteer to assume responsibility for spearheading such a project?

-- Polaris999 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. I would also add that after Guevara's February 24 1965 Speech delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity in Algiers, it became clear that he not only questioned the economic policies of the Soviet Union, but also their internationalist stances. As time went on, Che certainly began to favor the Chinese Maoist model of development over the Soviet system - and some scholars believe that it was this "critique" of the Soviet Union (as essentially being a complicit accomplice for capitalist imperialism) that may have led to Fidel essentially being told by the Soviet Union that Guevara was no longer 'welcome' on the Soviet/Cuban political landscape.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedThoreau, to the best of my knowledge, your assessment is 100% correct. -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a biased article. In the "After the Revolution" section it states, "It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time.[48]" which is not only misleading, as the sentenced persons stood trial before their executions (which had the support of 93% of the Cuban people) they were not "ordered" to be executed they were convicted and sentenced, but it is in contradiction to its own citation, "Different sources cite different numbers of executions. Anderson (1997) gives the number specifically at La Cabaña prison as fifty-five (p. 387.) while also stating that as a whole "several hundred people were officially tried and executed across Cuba" (p. 387.). This is supported by Lago who gives the figure as 216 documented executions across Cuba in two years." Guevara would only have been overseeing the ones at La Cabaña, not all 216. Even if he was overseeing those 216 that is not "several hundred" as several means more than 2.

Also the article states, "Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal." Without a doubt Che was in favor of the summary trials, but the tales woven by Cuban exiles, in which he was the "Butcher of La Cabaña," presiding over most of the shootings in Habana, are flights of fantasy. Revolutionary Tribunals No.1 and No.2 did sit at La Cabaña, the first trying policemen and soldiers, the second (which did not pass death sentences) trying civilians. RT1, presided over by Miguel Ángel Duque de Estrada, did pass the death sentence in some cases, at least two dozen of which were in January. Che did not sit on either tribunal, but did review appeals in his capacity as commander. He could have had not doubts as he ratified the sentences; he believed in the justice of what he was doing and over the previous years had become tough-minded about such situations. (Lenerd (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lenerd. You seem to be knowledgeable on the subject and I would encourage you to take part in editing the article. Everything included must have a reliable source, so once you have a credible source to substantiate the above claims - then by all means please include them. Also any editor is free to "improve" the wording of the article as it relates to already existing sources, so by all means feel free to assist in that effort as well. I believe that all current editors want to present as “fair” and NPOV article as possible, but remember as well that sometimes there will be disagreement (hopefully respectful) on how best to do that (realizing their will be conflicting sources). I hope you will devote your efforts in this endeavor.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following is the first paragraph of the section Cuba, which in my opinion needs some re-working:

Here are the problems I have noticed in this paragraph, sentence by sentence:

• 1. "Guevara arrived in Mexico City in early September 1954, and renewed his friendship with the other Cuban exiles whom he had known in Guatemala."

Comment: Guevara was not a Cuban exile, therefore he could not have renewed his friendship with "the other" Cuban exiles.

• 2. "In June 1955, López introduced him to Raúl Castro who later introduced him to his older brother, Fidel Castro, the revolutionary leader who had formed the 26th of July Movement and was now plotting to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in what became the Cuban Revolution."

Comment: tenses are mixed — "had formed ... was plotting ... became"

• 3. "Guevara recognized at once that Castro was the cause for which he had been searching.^[2]"

Comment: Two issues here: First, last time I noticed, Fidel Castro was an individual, not a "cause". Second, the source given (Spartacus School Net: Che Guevara) is not the best one available — since the fact that CG joined Castro's movement immediately after meeting him is documented in hundreds of published sources, we should be able to find a better one to use as a reference here. (And how about choosing one that is not JLA, just for the sake of variety?)

Following is a new version of the paragraph in question, incorporating the changes I would like to make:

Please enter your comments, corrections, enhancements, etc. here: Thank you! -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I like your new paragraph and think that it takes care of the problems in wording that you brought up. As far as another reference for when he had the recognition that he identified with Castro's cause, I believe the wording that now exists in the article is very close to Anderson. "After several hours more, Fidel Castro had invited Ernesto to join his guerrilla movement. Ernesto had accepted on the spot. ...It was the early days—Fidel was a long way from putting together his ambitious scheme—but it was the cause Ernesto had been searching for." (p. 175 Anderson) I agree that references/views other than Anderson's would improve the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, Mattisse. I have found another source for sentence #3, ie, Che Guevara: A biography by Daniel James, page 83. As you know, almost all bios of CG tell basically the same story re the first meeting, and CG himself gives some details about it in his "Farewell Letter". I am just reluctant to cite JLA here since his work is already referenced so frequently in the current iteration of the CG article — to an extent which IMHO gives the impression that he is almost the sole source for the article — and his description of the first meeting does not reflect any new discoveries about it by him. What are your thoughts about this, please? -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and agree with both Polaris' edits and the above comments. Nice work.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article seems to present Anderson's point of view. I agree with User:jbmurray that Anderson takes a very personal, psychodynamic view of his subject which (in my mind) compromises his objectivity. The novelistic style of writing (as in his opening regarding the fortune teller and birth date) are part of this as well as his calling Guevara "Ernesto" in the beginning of the book and switching to "Che" later on. To me this is unprofessional for a historian. The inclusion of more skeptical sources, as jbmurray suggested, would benefit the article, in my opinion. Even the article opening, "Guevara remains an admired, controversial, and significant historical figure..." seems out of place. Certainly if he was admired, he was also hated. Further, does this reflect the present, 2008? It is a very 20th century view, but is it a 21th century one? These are the thoughts I have about the article. The article would be more interesting to me if it included more of a neutral evaluation of his political thinking in the context of the times rather than concentrating on such a pro-Guevara stance regarding his legacy which now sounds so 1960s to me. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I agree that more could be done to include the other 2 primary biographers of Che Guevara - Jorge G. Castaneda, and Paco Ignacio Taibo II. I have both of their books – Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, and Guevara, Also Known as Che and would be willing to work with other editors to try and incorporate their perspectives as well (hopefully Jbmurray would be willing to assist us as I feel he could be a considerable asset). Furthermore, it is my view that the article at present does an acceptable job at remaining neutral - as both sides could find faults with it lining up with their reality (see above comments from Lenerd who finds it to be unfairly critical of Che’s actions in relation to the revolutionary tribunals). Of note as well ... Jon Lee Anderson is often seen as the "middle ground" biographer on Che with Castaneda being slightly to the right and Taibo II slightly to the left (JbMurray made note of this as well). All 3 are extremely credible in my mind though - and should be viewed as the consummate expert sources on information with relation to Guevara. -------- With regards to him being "beloved" and "hated" and it's present day relevance, I would actually make the case that Che was much more controversial when he was alive and after his death, than today. His worldwide fame and status as an icon has only grown since his death and is probably greater today than at anytime in history. Now yes most of his "iconic" status may not be based on Che the man - but Che the "idea" ... but still he has a significant following of admirers, while his detractors are mostly limited to older Cuban exiles and Conservative-leaning Americans ... a small portion in the overall worldwide view. In addition, Che’s “status” will probably only be enhanced by the soon to be released films “Guerrilla (film)” and “The Argentine (film)” which I would predict will create a resurgence of interest in his life story.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (outdening also) I wish I had know previously you had such a high opinion of Lenerd. I reverted the following edit Lenerd made and you may want to add it back—I copied Polaris999's tables— Please do since you feel as you do about Lenerd. (I am quoting generally from an old edit, so some of this may be the writing of you and others. I only reverted Lenerd edits, nothing else.)

I am not so wrapped up in the "legacy" and am far more interested in the history of political thinking than making anyone into a hero. In other words, I am more interested in people than their "legacies", particularly when their "legacy" is not actively influencing any of the world's many active issues today, say like J.F.K.'s legacy is. I am speaking for the United States so your part of the world may be different. Please restore the above impulsive reversions I made. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I state that I have a "high opinion" of Lenerd? I was simply using his comments to illustrate that both sides on the hero/villain spectrum could find fault with the article - thus making it in my mind - pretty fair. I also have no desire to make a "hero" out of Che, but simply to compile a fair account of his life and let the reader decide for themselves if those actions are in fact "heroic." However, I do find it imperative that as editors we guard against the "smearing" of historical and politically controversial figures. Nevertheless, I personally wasn't taking any opinion on the edits that you reverted of Lenerd’s - and feel that the best way to judge their merit would probably be to have Polaris look them over and decide if they warrant inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the expression of confidence, RedThoreau. I will be glad to work with you and the other editors to try to sort this matter out together. Hopefully, Lenerd will return to clarify certain points, provide sources, etc. One suggestion I would make right now is that we remove the "supreme prosecutor" label because I consider it incorrect and unjustified — what are your thoughts about this? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with removing that title. How do you think it should read instead?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedThoreau, I would greatly prefer that you would write that sentence as seems best to you. -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to remove that from the lead and thus reword the paragraph. If you are unhappy with the result, please revert.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RedThoreau, I think that the sentence you have written is outstanding. I also appreciate the fact that you moved the part about the tribunals into the proper chronological order. Cheers, Polaris999 (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute, please ... Let's take a careful look at what User:Lenerd wrote before we do a full restore. While I think some of his points are valid (I personally strongly disagree with JLA's characterization of CG as the "Supreme Prosecutor"), the issue remains that he has not adequately sourced his statements. The reference he gives, ie "<ref>''Revolución''</ref>" certainly does not suffice. Also, there are grammatical and orthographical problems with what he has written. Don't you think we should wait to see if he returns and corrects these problems here on the Talk page and then decide whether to include part or all of what he has written in the article itself? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that User:Lenerd may be scared off by my behavior. Redthoreau generously told him/her to feel free to edit (above), and I too quickly reverted. I should not have done that. Lenerd may not feel welcome here anymore. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, sad to say but I would conjecture that if User:Lenerd is so easily scared off, he/she probably isn't well suited for editing this particular article in any case. I don't think that you should feel badly about what you did -- if you hadn't reverted it, I would have! -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, to be clear - I never believed that your reverts of Lenerd were wrong to begin with and am not sure how you would have gotten that impression out of my above comments. Some of his additions were improperly sourced and poorly worded. His intended meaning may have merit, but was not carried out properly - hence why I messaged him about the issue in hopes that he would work within the confines of npov and attribute properly. As for you possibly "scaring him off" I can't say, and will leave that to you and him/her to possibly work out.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I have looked at the diffs on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=220425844&oldid=219865172 and it seems to me that the quote you are referring to was part of what Lenerd wrote. Would you plese take another look and bring it back into the "text box" if it was? (BTW I agree that your rollback was the right call.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent) Do you mean this quote?

Neither you nor anyone else can take matters into his own hands. There are revolutionary tribunals. If anyone acts on his own behalf, I'll order him to be locked up and tried by a revolutionary tribunal, too.

I am not the best person to look at diffs, so if you see it as part of the editing by Lenerd, then it probably was. When I look at this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=prev&oldid=220425844, which was Lenerd's first I think, it seems like the quote was already there (if it was part of the three edits of his in a row that I reverted). What do you think? –Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am just now understanding that, until now, I have always thought that the wording in red represented the changed text. But I see that you are looking at the same diff. Therefore, I must be wrong. The red text only represents some of the text added? So the cquote was added along with the text in red? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is my interpretation of the situation ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I wish you would indulge me here and explain about the diffs. How does one tell from a diff what is different if the red text does not tell the whole story, since text may just be moved down, for example, but still be old text? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I would be so pleased to explain the matter of Diffs to you if I understood it myself! Everything seems to make sense on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=prev&oldid=219865172 where I changed a few words, ie so that the sentence morphed from "One of his most prominent published works includes a manual on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare." to "One of his most influential works is a manual on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare." But when we move forward to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&diff=next&oldid=219865172, things get confusing. It looks to me as if the text in green on the right (Revision as of 20:16, 19 June 2008) indicates which paragraphs Lenerd has modified and what he has added or changed in these paragraphs is shown in red. However, since the quote he adds is a new paragraph that he creates, there is no red lettering in it. That is my best guess -- please share any insights you may have about the Diffs with me as I, too, find them very perplexing at times. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (outdent) As far as an editor being scared off as Lenerd may have been, I have been scared off and have not edited the article since before the FACR in April or whenever it was, except for this revert, which now I am very sorry about. So I fully understand how an editor could be scared off. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could write a message to User:Lenerd explaining that you think you perhaps over-reacted and hope he/she will return to continue editing? -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to edit here myself so I am not going to encourage another editor to do what I am unwilling to do. I do not agree with the tenor of the article. For that reason I was prevented from editing the article in the past. I do not see the atmosphere becoming more inclusive here. So I will leave my opinion out from now on. I regret I have expressed what I have so far. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in concluding that we have reached consensus re the paragraph discussed in the preceding topic about CG meeting FCR, etc.? If so, which source should we use as a reference? I have the impression that there is a preference for Taibo; is this perception correct? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RedThoreau. I will now make that change. Also, I will have to add the 2003 edition of the Taibo book to the "References" section as it is the one I am citing. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the Che Guevara off my watchlist. You two can do as you like. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris (& any other interested editors) do you own/have access to all 3 of these books as I do ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, for me -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I have pretty much every book in print on Guevara (20 +) but these 3 would be a good place to start (I believe) on attempting to blend the 3 narratives of his life story - and possibly alleviate the "Anderson-centric" perspective that exists at present.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the existing text prominent aspects of work of Guevara on Cuba are not shown. I offer such variant. If in three days I shall not meet its given reason criticism, I insert it into an article:

During the rebellion against Batista's dictatorship, the general command of the rebel army, led by Fidel Castro, "introduced into the liberated territories the 19th-century penal law commonly known as the Ley de la Sierra".^[11] "This law included the death penalty for extremely serious crimes, whether perpetrated by the dictatorship or by supporters of the revolution. In 1959, the revolutionary government extended its application to the whole of the republic and to war criminals captured and tried after the revolution. This latter extension, supported by the majority of the population, followed the same procedure as that seen in" the Nuremberg Trials held by the Allies after World War II.^[12] However organized Castro courts are characterized by eyewitnesses as "was sickening " parody which is not having anything common with justice ^{[13] [14] [15]}. To implement this plan, Castro named Guevara commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, for a five-month tenure (January 2 through June 12, 1959).^[16] Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.^[17] Serving in the post as "supreme prosecutor" on the appellate bench, Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal. Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.^[18]

According to testimony of one the participant of the tribunal, José Vilasuso, Guevara instructed judges:

Don't delay these trials. This is a revolution, the proofs are secondary. We have to proceed by conviction. They are a gang of criminals and murderers. Besides, remember that there is an Appeals Tribunals^[15].

Appeals Tribunal over which supervised Che, has not cancelled any verdict^[15].

It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time^[19]. ^{[20][15] [21]}

Among executeds there was a 14-years boy which fault consisted that it tried to protect his father. Che Guevara has shot he with own hand. Under testimonys of eyewitnesses, Che with visible pleasure participated in executions, with own hand making coup de grace in a head; when he could not accept in them direct participation, he admired them from the office for what has ordered break off part of a wall and make a window in a yard for executions ^[19]. ^[20][15]

On June 12, 1959, as soon as Guevara returned to Havana, Castro sent him out on a three-month tour of fourteen countries, most of them Bandung Pact members in Africa and Asia. Sending Guevara from Havana also allowed Castro to appear to be distancing himself from Guevara and his Marxist sympathies, that troubled both the United States and some of Castro's 26th of July Movement members.^[23] He spent twelve days in Japan (July 15–27), participating in negotiations aimed at expanding Cuba's trade relations with that nation. During this visit Guevara also secretly visited the city of Hiroshima, where the American military had detonated an atom-bomb fourteen years earlier. Guevara was "really shocked" at what he witnessed and by his visit to a hospital where A-bomb survivors were being treated.^[24]

Upon returning to Cuba in September 1959, it was evident that Castro now had more political power. The government had begun land seizures included in the agrarian reform law, but was hedging on compensation offers to landowners, instead offering low interest "bonds", which put the U.S. on alert. At this point the affected wealthy cattlemen of Camagüey mounted a campaign against the land redistributions, and enlisted the newly disaffected rebel leader Huber Matos, who along with the anti-Communist wing of the 26th of July Movement, joined them in denouncing the "Communist encroachment."^[25] During this time Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo was offering assistance to the "Anti-Communist Legion of the Caribbean" who was training in the Dominican Republic. This multi-national force comprised mostly of Spaniards and Cubans, but also of Croatians, Germans, Greeks, and right-wing mercenaries, were plotting to topple Fidel Castro.^[26]

These developments prompted Castro to further clean house of "counter-revolutionaries", and appoint Guevara chief official at the National Institute of Agrarian Reform INRA and later President of the National Bank of Cuba BNC, while allowing him to retain his military rank.^[27] At first glance it seemed a strange choice for the important position, Guevara had been promoting the creation of self-sufficient industries since his days in the Sierra Maestra. Guevara was expecting the U.S. to invade, and the Cuban population to then leave the cities and fight as guerrillas, although Guevara's hopes for armed uprisings elsewhere were failing.^[28]

In 1960 Guevara provided first aid to victims when the freighter La Coubre, a French vessel carrying munitions from the port of Antwerp, exploded twice while it was being unloaded in Havana harbor, resulting in well over a hundred dead.^[29] It was at the memorial service for the victims of this explosion that Alberto Korda took the famous photograph now known as Guerrillero Heroico.

Guevara desired to see a diversification in Cuba’s economy, as well as an elimination of material incentives, in favor of moral ones. Guevara viewed capitalism as a “contest among wolves” where “one can only win at the cost of others”, and thus desired to see the creation of a “new man and woman”.^[30] An integral part of fostering a sense of “unity between the individual and the mass”, Guevara believed, was volunteer work and will. To display this, Guevara "led by example", working "endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane" on his day off.^[31] During this time he also wrote several publications advocating a replication of the Cuban revolutionary model, promoting small rural guerrilla groups (foco theory) as an alternative to massive armed insurrection.

Guevara did not participate in the fighting of the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion, having been ordered by Castro to a secretly prearranged command post in Cuba's western Pinar del Río province, where he fended off a decoy force.^[32] He suffered a bullet grazing to the cheek during this deployment, however, when his pistol fell out of its holster and accidentally discharged.^[33] In August 1961, during an economic conference of the Organization of American States in Punta del Este, Uruguay, Che Guevara sent a note of "gratitude" to U.S. President John F. Kennedy through Richard N. Goodwin, a young secretary of the White House. It read "Thanks for Playa Girón (Bay of Pigs). Before the invasion, the revolution was shaky. Now it's stronger than ever."^[34]

Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. During an interview with the British Communist newspaper The Daily Worker a few weeks after the crisis, Guevara still fuming, stated that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them off.^[35] Sam Russell, the British correspondent who spoke to Guevara at the time came away with "mixed feelings", calling him "a warm character" and "clearly a man of great intelligence", but "crackers from the way he went on about the missiles."^[36]

Guevara is initiator the organization in 1960 of concentration camp Guanahacabibes, become the first concentration camp of system UMAP (Cuban GULAG). In camp banished those who not made the certain crime, but nevertheless was considered «delinquent» .

«Delinquency» considered drinking, vagrancy, disrespect for authorities, laziness, playing loud music, listening of «Yankee-Imperialist rock music» (the young men thrown in camp for hearing of a rock music, named roqueros); and homosexuality. Che Guevara spoke:

We send to Guanahacabibes people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals. . it is hard labor...the working conditions are harsh...

The camp has been created on the classical sample of the Soviet concentration camps, with a barbed wire, watchtowers and guard dogs. ^{[20] [19]}

Result of activity Guevara as financier became that Cuban peso, earlier equal to dollar, has absolutely depreciated. As minister of the industry, it tried to lead industrialization of Cuba. Among its actions in this direction it is necessary to note: orders on construction a refrigerator factory built in Cienfuegos, a pick and shovel factory built in Santa Clara, a pencil factory built in Havana. Any of these factorys and has started to work. Also Guevara has disposed to buy in Czechoslovakia a fleet of snow plows, hoped to alter them in combines for cleaning a sugar cane, that, in its opinion, should mechanize cleaning and is prompt raise harvesting. However these machines cut them off at the wrong length and killed stalks of a sugar cane. As a result, manufacture of sugar on Cuba down.

Guevara also has disposed to cut down extensive and rich plantation Central Macareno and to arrange on its place a football field, to accustom Cubans to play football. It promoted an aggravation of deficiency of the fruit which has begun on Cuba with coming to power Castro. Thus, Cubans did not wish to play football, and the field on a place of a plantation has been thrown and overgrown with by weeds^[19]

Sfrandzi (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]