Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Che Guevara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	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. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force South American military history task force

Template:Communism Portal selected Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Calm talk Template:Notforum

To-do list for Che Guevara: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-02-08 (When an item is complete, just delete it) Content Incorporate and evenly blend the 3 major Guevara biographies: (1) Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson (2) Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda (3) Guevara, Also Known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II. Formatting of references; see Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#Citation formatting Miscellaneous Determine whether the hidden timeline conforms to MOS.

Completed discussions from May 24 - Aug 22 2008 on this talk page have been moved to Archive 18       Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara wasnt just a two dimetional image printed on a t-shirt he was a real person a person with ideas, ideas that went against American imperialism to make the world one again not just tawn apart by capitalism and communism by America and Russia who have the power to destroy the world while Che created a communist country in the western hemisphere Cuba which wasnt his country but knew that armed struggle worked against a repressive government. Che a man so against capitalism would hate his image sold especially by the Americans who had him killed and then used his image to their own advantage thinking he and his ideas died in 1967 the Americans then revel in their evil deed all they did was kill a man not his ideas. People who are against Che are either an impeialist of the worst kind or ignorent propaganda the Americans have made up against him to secure world wide hatred but failed the images that support Che outnumber those of anti-Che his image used for anti-war protests during the Vietnam era Americas own people turned against the government who waged war in a country they couldnt possibly understand. His image used by such guerrilla forces as the EZLN who combine a classic revolutionary hero with modern day things like the internet other so called guerrilla forces who are not worthy to use his image do like the FARC who's bussiness is drug trafficking and kidnapping, relying on drugs to finance them when it should be the people who give support and money. Now more than ever in the 21st century people need to be more selfless like Che and stand up against the Anericans with armed revolution. ---matt suter--- 22 august 2008 82.69.30.7

Matt, I'm not exactly sure what critique of the article you are making (or if you are even making one at all), but I would note that an article's talk page - is not a discussion forum to air one's personal views without reference to editing the article in question.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite good and very well cited... one suggestion, there isn't much on Guevara's personality or leadership style aside from the mention that was "ruthless". In Ramonez's "Fidel Castro: My Life", Castro describes Che as an exemplary leader, having "great moral authority over his troops", "very daring", the first to sign up for dangerous missions, but also that he "took too many risks", and had a "tendency toward foolhardiness". In fact, Castro says later he assigned Guevara to the recruits' school, so that he would survive the war, because Castro needed good leaders for when the revolution was won. Any opinions on whether these details might be relevant here? I think they are; I just want some feedback before I go barging in editing what is quite a refined article already... Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Go for it: as long as your edits are cited and NPOV: i.e. sometimes you may need to present more than one viewpoint for balance. If you're doing extensive edits it may be a good idea to present the proposed edits in more detail here on the talk page first, for discussion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I won't make it too extensive an edit since this is only Castro's opinion... If others add different sources later maybe it would justify a new section someday. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zatoichi, sounds like a worthy addition. Feel free to include those aspects, and be sure to cite/attribute them properly.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sentences in the Cuba section, it seemed like a good place since it's directly after some anecdotes about Guevara. I didn't add the bit about Fidel sending Che away for the last offensive, since it contradicts the Battle of Las Mercedes page which says he did command a column for Batista's offensive. I'm not really versed enough on the topic to know which is right so I'll err on the side of caution. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the primary editors of the article on Eva Peron. An editor suggested that I attempt to use this article on on Che Guevara as an inspiration for the Eva Peron article. I was wondering if anyone here has any suggestions for improving the article on Eva Peron. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

che one of the gratest man in history. brave , smart . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.185.184 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, the article appears to be compiled fairly well. I am not sure what advice you may be seeking.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose I'm just looking for anything anyone may have to say about how to improve the article. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm hoping this is the place to propose clarity re. Guevara. The article describes him as a physician. Yet I was under the impression that Mr. Guevara did not proceed beyond medical school to certification and practice of medicine. Is this not like referring to a law school graduate as a lawyer? Thanks Eggioto (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He practiced medicine. I don't remember what kind of certification he had. There might be something somewhere in the talk page archives about it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guevara attended Medical school at the University of Buenos Aires and was certified as a medic. Some sources claim he completed a thesis receiving the title of "Dr." as well, although this belief is not universally held amongst biographers. Guevara also worked for a time at a leper colony and later briefly taught on the medical faculty (according to some sources) in Mexico City before the Cuban revolution. Moreover, Guevara's primary job and reason for being on the Granma, is because he was assigned to be the medic of Castro's Guerrilla forces. There are also countless accounts from numerous sources of instances when he treated wounded men (as a physician) in the course and aftermath of battles. Later Guevara would address medical students in Havana under the title of "Dr. Guevara" and often was recognized by this title (although I don't believe that a specific diploma has been located proving he reached the status of a M.D., as the University of Buenos Aries claims that documentation was somehow stolen.) Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Guevara served in many aspects as a physician.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the upshot is that he was trained as a medic, practiced medicine, and referred to himself and was referred to as Dr. Guevara? On the basis of that Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, refers to Mr. Guevara uncritically as a medical doctor? Not trying to be a smart ass here. But this is what I meant by proposing clarity. There is no evidence that Mr. Guevara got beyond the limited medical training of medic. It was my understanding before I read the article that medic was precisely what he achieved at the U. of B.A. I believe he had years of medical training yet to go before he could sit for certification, when he left the University. If he did complete the University's full course of study for an aspiring physician, then would he not have had to take certification exams, complete a residency, etc.? I can't imagine that all records of such were also stolen. And if they were, what about witnesses to such? Given the lack of evidence that he was educated, certified, or licensed as a 'physician,' shouldn't the article on Mr. Guevara be stripped of the title or salutation, 'Dr.'? There is no shame in Medic Guevara. Medics practice medicine. So do nurses, certain therapists, native healers, etc. But they are not doctors.

Thank you, Eggioto Eggioto (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Guevara's attempts to obtain a medical internship were unsuccessful". It also says he planned to be the group's "medic". Maybe it's OK. Maybe "physician" is sufficiently vague. Maybe it could be replaced with "medic" or "medical practitioner" or something. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "physician" carries the explicit implication that he achieved a M.D. He did work as a physician in several aspects (including a war), regardless of his medical credentials. I feel the current wording is appropriate, but am open to other suggestions or concensus.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia said "This article is in such need of massive amounts of MoS cleanup that it should have a cleanup tag, but I won't do that.". Would anyone who knows what cleanup is needed please tell us so we can fix it? Thanks. Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled about the use of "massive", but do recognize that some of the reference footnotes need to be formatted correctly. Coppertwig, you were excellent at doing this before, would you be willing to lend your efforts again for the few remaining instances still in need ??? (as you are much better at it than me)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of note as well, I hope that Sandy will give us specifics, as occasionally in the past she has briefly 'appeared' to lend broad (almost-cryptic) critiques, only to disappear when I have requested specifics. I would imagine that is because she is very busy with a lot on her plate, but can’t give a reason with certainty.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia has provided some good specifics here. Yes, I'll have a look at the references. Feel free to remind me if I haven't done it by next weekend. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK if I use templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}} to format the references? I find that these templates make it easier: you just put in the title, author etc. and the template decides what should be in italics, whether to separate items with a period or a comma, etc. I had thought SandyGeorgia opposed using these, but apparently that was a misunderstanding. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support whichever formatting you feel is best. Personally, I like the way you organized them before and how they currently stand (except for those recent additions).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please format references like this:

Easy way (if you find it too confusing to put in the links and everything):

• Check whether the source is already listed in the References section.
• If not, add it to that section. Begin with an asterisk at the beginning of the line. Don't worry about adding <cite> tags or {{cite book}} templates etc. if you find that too difficult; just list all the bibliographic information.
• In the body of the text, just put something like this: <ref>Anderson 1997, p. 43</ref> or <ref>Anderson 1997, pp. 43–47</ref> .
• Optionally, put a note here on the talk page or on my talk page and I'll put the links in. If you format it as described above, that will be easy for me. I think it's almost as good without the links anyway: the reader can still find the source listed in the References section.

More advanced way

• Follow all the steps above.
• The link from the Notes section to the References section needs a unique identifier. It could be anything, but the convention here is to use the letters "ref", followed by the author and year, e.g. "refAnderson1997".
• The item in the References section should have the id in cite tags. <cite id=refAnderson1997> at the beginning of the item, and </cite> at the end of the item.
• Within the ref tags, (or anywhere else you want to put a link into the References section), just replace "Anderson 1997" (for example) with "[[#refAnderson1997|Anderson 1997]]". The id after the # symbol here must match the id defined in the cite tag in the References section.

Thanks.

By the way, a problem: the book by H.B. Ryan (The Fall of Che Guevara) has been cited as being published in 1998 in one place, and in 1999 in another place. Perhaps two different editions of the book have been used? If so, the page numbers could be different in the different editions. Perhaps someone with access to at least one edition of the book can re-check it so that we can cite only one edition of the book, with page numbers correct for that edition. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention that Che followed the post-revolutionary doctrine in Cuba which included the "re-education" of homosexuals and critical journalists. I am sorry if this has been brought up before. 87.60.229.164 (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things in relation to this comment. (1) “Followed” is a vague term with reference to what exact role you are accusing Che of having. (2) It is not mentioned in the article; because “re-education” camps did not exist in the way you state them. (3) What did exist were UMAP (Units for Military Aid and Production) camps, which were a result of mandatory military conscription being implemented for all Cuban males after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. As a result of the unfortunate prevailing ‘machismo’ of 1960’s Cuba, homosexual men were not allowed to serve in the military (of note this discriminatory policy still exists in the United States, although no longer in Cuba). To complete their mandatory military service, homosexual men were conscripted into producing military equipment and supplies as part of their requirements for citizenship in the post revolutionary period (under the belief --- justifiable or not --- that Cuba was an ‘island under siege’ by the World’s superpower 90 miles away). However, there were not policies that attempted to "cure” or “re-educate” them in reference to their homosexual lifestyle, that I am aware of. (4) None of the 3 major Guevara biographies make the accusation that you are alluding to that I am aware of (if they do, then yes we should absolutely include them), and the only ‘sources’ (I use this term loosely) that do, are very questionable in reliability, scholarship, and objectivity ... not to mention in direct contradiction to the prevailing preponderance of the evidence. (5) As for “critical journalists”, yes many of them were arrested or charged with “counter-revolutionary activity” after the revolution (with many being rightly-or-wrongly accused and convicted as working for the CIA etc), however this policy was not implemented by Guevara, and would belong in the article addressing Fidel Castro (who would have had the final say on such a decision) or the article addressing human rights in Cuba etc. (6) Nevertheless, I would be willing to look at whatever evidence you have to substantiate the above claim in relation to Guevara (please include it below), and am not averse to its inclusion if it can be reliably sourced.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

homosexual lie is a cia myth. spread by the oligarchs who fled to miami after che came to power and gave the people justice. all men in cuba had to serve fighting or making weapons to keep the yanqui invaders from killing the revolucion like they did with arbenz, allende, mossadeq for example. yes che was not fond of gay people but many latinos in 1950 were not. times have changed with views on maricons. however che did not use camps for gays they were bases for weapon producing. 63.164.145.85 (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that thoreau obviously knows a great deal more about this than I do. Though if it is true that Che helped back an anti-homosexual policy shouldnt that be noted somewhere? - Indeed, one might argue that this is only marginal, but just like views on anti-semitism have changed, so have views on homosexuals and WIKI includes much of such "maginal" infomation on a long row of historical personæ 87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 87, if you have a reliable source chronicling Guevara's support of anti-homosexual policy, then please include it here for possible inclusion. The only statement I am aware of Guevara making, that could even be seen as remotely relevant to homosexuality/heterosexuality was during a June 26 1962 interview, Che stated something to the effect of “I don’t drink, I smoke. I would cease to be a man if I didn’t like women.” (see Che Handbook, pg 258). This sort of “machismo” and “bravado” was certainly prevalent amongst many of the “Barbudos” during the Cuban revolution of the 1950’s, but I am not convinced it would necessitate a direct desire for incarceration/official discrimination of homosexuals.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that quote would justify as anti-homosexual, nor do I think it would be relevant to include such a criticism on the basis of such an off handed remark. What I am talking about is rather the fact that Che supposedly aided in the execution of Castro-ian policies which supposedly included the internation of homosexuals, critical journalists etc. without free trials. - To the extent that this is true, I certainly think it should be stated in a brief criticism section in order to incorporate a more balanced PoW. --- While I have no part in the person-centered struggles that seem to be taking place over this article, I *do* agree with the other poster that a criticism section is sorely missing. Unsigned

To address the unsigned comment above. These "supposed" incarcerations are not chronicled or verified in reliable sources and hence they are not included. If you have a reliable source that includes such a charge that implicates Che, then by all means please include it and we can weigh it against the overall evidence. However, the only sources I am aware that make such a claim are "comical" in their credibility and resemble little of the overall historical record. As for a "criticism" section ... one was included in the past, but it was later moved over into the article on "Legacy of Che Guevara". Some of the prevailing reasons for such a move were the articles length, and the fact that a criticism section would also have to include a "praise" section to prevent WP:Undue weight, with the "praise" section most likely ending up being much larger in size (because there are at least 15 Pro-Che books or essays for every Anti-Che book or essay) and I know because I own all 50 + of them.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is, for me, some confusion in the execution section. my general understanding of the 'drawing of straws' paradigm is that it is to select someone to do something dangerous, difficult or generally disagreeable and undesirable, with the one drawing the short straw being chosen. while that is nowhere certain,that is the connotation i have always taken from it. this then creates the impression that the soldiers were trying to avoid being the one designated.is that the meaning intended? or is it meant here to say that the one who drew the short straw got a much favoured assignment? that is what i would take from the subsequent sentences, re the watch for example. clarification please. perhaps changing it to 'by lot' or something to that effect.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think this page does a good job of showing how the heroico el che is seen as equal to a god by many many people. however there are a few parts that i think are to negative and are probebly made up by the cia or those miami mafia gusanos who hate the heroic el che. editors please be on the look out for cia misinformation. it would be a shame to see wikipedia allow ches killers to also smear him with lies after his murder. in latin america where i am from el che is seen as second only to jesus and to some people who don't believe che is seen as better than jesus. i am in this category and pray to him as a saint. sorry for my english being bad. but overall very good article and you must have had help from some latino americans because gringos usually dont know the real hero che. hasta la victoria siempre !!!! 63.164.145.85 (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly respect your right to sanctify whomever you want, but would add that all human beings are flawed, and that it is not our job to enshrine anyone with their wikipedia entry ... but rather to chronicle the views of experts and reliable sources on the person/issue in question (if those views were entirely of a “saintly” nature, then that is how the article would read). The article does give a brief mention to the “Saint-hood” phenomenon you mention in the appropriate legacy section of the article, but any further elaboration in the article would in my view be unwarranted. As for "CIA misinformation", if you have a specific accusation, I am sure editors would be happy to look into it; however it is not enough to simply label all criticism of Guevara as the work of the CIA.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will be a shame if English Wikipedia state this. Only not Anti-USA and Anti-Capitalism, Che was a terrorist murderer and also a coward for avoid Brazil borders and face real combat with real soldiers. --201.79.253.124 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 201, I will reiterate what I have in the past for both pro and anti Che comments. This forum is not a message board, or a discussion forum to simply air one's beliefs on Che Guevara (although I respect your right to view him however you wish). This page and article are for discussing issues in relation to the article, and drive-by swipes only lead to a deterioration of the page into a squabble of "hero" vs. "terrorist" which is exactly what we don't need.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it verifiable that Che once signed one of his letters as "Stalin II"? - Also, isn't there ample examples of Che eigther following of speaking highly of Stalinist policy, and if this is the case: Why is it not included in the article? 87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of now the article does not mention Stalinism or Che's support of it. The Spanish edition of this article does. Should it be added? 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a worshipful view of Che. So no, it should not be added. User:Redthoreau and User:Coppertwig are in charge of the article and nothing that they do not O.K. is allowed in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with all articles, content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS involving all editors, not just me and Redthoreau, and by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Whole books have been written about Guevara, and this article is just a short summary, a few pages in length. There isn't room for everything. We need to choose the most interesting, relevant, notable etc. material.

If you think something (about Stalinism or anything else) should be added to this article, I suggest you write something here on the talk page, with suggested text to add, giving one or more citations, and perhaps an argument as to why it's important enough to include. Then everyone can discuss whether to include it or not.

For some material, if there isn't enough room in this article, there may be a place for it in one of the other articles about Guevara. For example, the foco theory article is about Guevara's ideology, sort-of, so possibly that information might go better there, where there's more room to go into detail about ideology, although perhaps the article is only about one aspect of Guevara's ideology so possibly not.

Anderson (1997) mentions Stalin only briefly, e.g. p. 565, and indicates that Guevara was initially enthusiastic about the ideas, then later disillusioned with them.

I don't see why mentioning support of Stalinism would necessarily be considered worshipful. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) To address the first comments in this section from the IP accounts starting with 87 & 90. Yes, there are a few verifiable instances of Che Guevara having some tangential response with relation to Stalin (the man) although not necessarily the theories of “Stalinism”. As for background, various biographers have pointed out how Guevara who grew up during WWII and his family were ardent critics of Nazism and thus staunch supporters of the allies in WWII - especially Stalin’s Russia, but this would have also included the U.S., Britain etc. Thus there was an instance in 1953 (8 years after the end of WWII) when a young Ernesto Guevara (he was not “Che” yet) after spending 3 weeks passing through the domains of the United Fruit Company in Costa Rica wrote a letter to his Aunt Beatriz back in Buenos Aries. In this private letter to his aunt, Guevara states that he swore on the lamented image of Comrade Stalin that he would not rest until these capitalist “octopuses have been vanquished.” (Taibo II mentions this on pg 31). I also remember that in another text that it stated Guevara wrote this letter after encountering a large group of young children with “swollen stomachs” who were being used in his mind as de-facto child slaves for the United Fruit Co and that he was venting his rage towards the injustices he viewed of capitalism in his letter. Now if editors find this event notable, I would not object to including it in its full context. Moreover, Guevara I believe also addressed a letter to possibly the same aunt around the same time with the moniker of 'Stalin II' (although Taibo, hypothesizes that the mentions of Stalin might have been an attempt to ruffle his more conservative relatives feathers, thus his sincerity is uncertain). However, in regard to undue weight, Che biographers have also pointed out how Guevara (who supported Stalin in the early 1950’s) became more disillusioned with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s as he began to side with Mao and the Chinese in the Sino/Soviet Split. Of note as well, when Guevara was killed, he had books by Leon Trotsky (Stalin’s nemesis) in his bag. In conclusion, it would be difficult to speculate on what degree Guevara identified with the particular Marxist interpretation referred to as “Stalinism”, although it would be accurate to state that in the early 1950’s, Guevara lamented Stalin and viewed him favorably.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we should look at including some mentions of Stalinism, *including* desribtions of Che's initial attraction to it, and later shift to Maoism. To me, this information would be crucial to an article on Che. Also, if the context of Che signing a letter as 'Stalin II' is even remotely uncertain, then I think the eventual article entry should reflect that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 87, you are more than encouraged to draw up an example of a cited statement that you believe would be worthy of inclusion and display it here for possible consideration (the article is locked from IP edits due to past vandalism, but I would gladly include it for you if there is some consensus on its verifiability and relevance). In addition, if you would rather have me write up something, and are willing to give me a little bit of time (week or so) then I would also be willing to write up a proposal that hopefully would alleviate your concern for there being a lack of inclusion of this material ... just let me know. The last thing I want is for others to view this article as a “white-wash” (or paradoxically a “hatchet-job”) and I am more than willing to include or back the inclusion of what could be viewed as “negative” aspects, as long as they are verified amongst the credible & scholarly Che biographers (Anderson, Castaneda, Taibo II) or others without an ideological ‘axe to grind’. These biographers do acknowledge this tangential connection to Stalin in his youth, and thus a brief acknowledgement in its proper context, I feel could be justified.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. The article would also be worse off if it presented information in an overly anti-Che manner. My dream article would present the information, pro et contra, and then let the reader decide. (This really was a good motto before Fox news made a mockery of it.) - Anyhow, I think the mention of Stalinism is especially due in this article because Stalinism is one of the main points of the anti-Che info that is floating around the net and also in academic essays. In a somewhat imprecise metaphor one could say that there is smoke, but seemingly only a little fire (I.e. tangiental relations to Stalin). So by all accounts the article would actually be better off representing the fire, not to let it get out of hand if you will excuse the mixed metaphor. 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90.184.19.129, you have not made it clear whether you intend to write some suggested text as Redthoreau (RT) suggested, nor whether you wish RT to do so as RT had offered if requested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As R.T. is obviously better informed I think he should do it. - Though it needent be more than a few lines.90.184.19.129 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your response 90, I will work on something in the next week and display it first on the talk page here, that hopefully will address your concern.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) - Hung up? 93.162.102.10 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A European newspaper carried an op-ed today where the author quotes the Motorcycle Diaries for this: "The black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink." - Is it true? 90.184.19.129 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 90, your statement seems to possess 1 direct question (Q1) Did Che ever make such a statement? & another inherent question based off of the title (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 (which is removed from its full context in the Op Ed page it seems) 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 class. On this occasion Guevara after meandering through a local “barrio” (slum) made an 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. (1) Inclusion of this “observation” would be more applicable to the article “The Motorcycle Diaries” (if anywhere). (2) Anderson notes two pages later how after visiting the U.S. for a brief time, 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 deem “offensive” in many aspects months earlier. (3) 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 2 (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 “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 (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. (3) When Che spoke before the U.N. in 1964, 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. (5) When Guevara ventured to the Congo, he fought with a Cuban force of mostly all Afro-Cubans (blacks) including those black Congolese fighters who he fought alongside against a force comprised partly of white South African mercenaries. (6) Later Guevara offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique, 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 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. I hope this addresses your question IP 90, and apologize for the length.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find one paragraph that criticizes Che in this entire article. It's the second to last paragraph, and quotes a journalist who is self-described as left of center. I find it.... difficult to believe that there are no better critics to be found, and none who are right-of-center.

I'm not suggesting there be a section specific to criticism. If you look at a page of an easily-criticized person like George W. Bush, you find criticism in pretty much every section. I find the Bush article to be a good example of how to handle this: it's not about quoting the critics but rather stating the specifics of disagreements in conjunction with the actions that were criticized.

Secondly, this is supposed to be an article about a person. We learn that he was born and raised. After that there is almost zero information about his life and loves. It's just "here are all the heroic things he did." With one exception: he apparently has to get a divorce before remarrying, which is interesting in that nowhere did it previously mention his marriage, and nowhere again does the article mention his spouse.

This is the best-written article I've ever read which is entirely non-neutral. -- Cjensen (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cjensen (nice to meet you), with all due respect I would disagree with your first contention about a lack of criticism. After looking through the article I note at least 18 negative/critical/unflattering statements with regard to Che Guevara. They include: (1) calling his ideology "radical" (2) Noting he is "controversial" (3) Mention that he has been "occasionally reviled" (4) Note that as a youth "he rarely bathed" (5) Description of his discipline as "harsh" (6 & 7) Mention that he punished deserters as traitors and sent execution squads to hunt them down. (8 & 9) Mention that he was "feared for brutality and ruthlessness" and personally "responsible for execution of a number of men" (10) Note that several hundred people were executed at La Cabana on cases where he reviewed the appeals (11) Mention that he accidentally shot himself when his gun dropped (12) Description of him as “crackers” on his desire to have fired nukes at NYC during Cuban missile crisis (13) Inclusion of his take that the Congo was a “history of a failure” (14) Description of him as a "spokesman for a failed ideology and as a ruthless executioner" (15) "Not a free-floating icon of rebellion" (16) "Person who supported an actual system of tyranny" (17) Mention that Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years & (18) Note than he also remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as "the butcher of La Cabaña. How many more negative or critical descriptions would you like? Certainly if you have others and a reliable source for them, we can weigh them against the prevailing evidence for possible inclusion.

As for your second point about the article lacking “personal anecdotes”, I actually agree and would be more than happy to look up additional points of interest for inclusion about Che the man.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article push Che as icon and hero. Cannot understand why American Wikipedian allow this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.222.228 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 201, first this is not "American Wikipedia", it is simply the English language version of Guevara's article ... and any person, from any country that can type in English, is free to register and help improve the article or suggest edits here as you have. Secondly, nothing is being "allowed" ... inclusion of material is based off of editor consensus, and the overall weighted WP:Undue evidence of material by reliable Che biographers, news sources etc. You are obviously free to hold the view that the article presents Che as an “icon” or “hero”, but that is only because many of the reliable sources make the observation that to many people he is an “icon” or “hero”. However, the article also includes many of the less flattering aspects of Che’s life & character, along with the fact that to others he is a “ruthless executioner”, “spokesman for a failed ideology”, "buthcher", and “supported an actual system of tyranny” --- all of which are noted in the article.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For any editor willing to integrate these items, here's my translation of certain family dates from the Spanish Wikipedia:

Married Hilda Gadea, 18 August 1955

Daughter Hilda Beatriz Guevara Gadea born 15 February 1956, died 1995.

Married Aleida March Torres (a member of the July 26th movement) in Havana 9 June 1959

Daughter: Aleida Guevara March, 17 November 1960

Son: Camilo Guevara March, 20 May 1962

Daughter: Celia Guevara March, 14 June 1963

Son: Ernesto Guevara March, 24 February 1965

Affair: Lidia Rosa López

Son: Omar Pérez, 19 March 1964

-- Cjensen (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale behind having two flags in the "name" field of the infobox? The name field, everywhere in Wikipedia, is used just for writing the name. Why is the Che Guevara article special to include two flags?

Also, please not that it's against the Manual of Style on flag usage, which says that "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative.". bogdan (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdang, this matter was previously discussed several times, most recently this Summer as archived in the two preceding links - Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18# Cuban flag? ---&--- Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18#Flags in infobox. There was no objection to keeping them as they are. Moreover, the MOS on flags was viewed to be "suggestive" not "prescriptive" and I would argue they are “useful” as a visual identifier, not merely “decoration.”   Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they "useful"? It has been previously discussed, but none of the two times, a reason for keeping them was given. bogdan (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Che's grandmother had partial Irish heritage. Does this merit the inclusion of a quote from his father about "Irish rebels blood flowing through his veins" as a header to the section and a detailed examination of (only) his Irish heritage? Guevara was at the most one eighth Irish and he has much more renown ancestors than this guy Patrick Lynch (such as the Viceroy of Lima).

The excessive emphasis of his irish heritage is the result of an anglo focus on English wikipedia which, according to policy, should be corrected. Hence my edits.

There is also a reference to the Basque origin of his surname. I have not deleted this. However, all of his family's surnames (except for Lynch) are simply Spanish. Furthermore, Basque names are common throughout Spain and the Spanish speaking world. I feel there is a (subconscious?) attempt to associate Che with Basque and Irish nationalism. --Damam2008 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: considering Patrick Lynch married Rosa de Galaya de la Camera in the mid 18th century, Che is probably 1/32th Irish... Would have to look at his family tree. The question is, is this even worthy of note? --Damam2008 (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damam, there are a whole host of issues with your remarks. For starters, Guevara’s family referred to themselves as the “Guevara-Lynch’s” amongst themselves. Now I am not sure where you are deriving this “genetic” theory of “Irishness”, but Che viewed himself as being partially Irish (the fractional derivative is irrelevant). This was corroborated when he visited Ireland and spoke with Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick – mentioning that he saw himself as an Irish-Argentine (of which there is a considerable number in the country). In reference to your “Anglo” theory, Argentina is not your ‘traditional Hispanic’ country, and has a mixed population of both what some identify as “Hispanic” people and “Anglo” (note I use quotes, as I don’t acknowledge the validity of such terms). In reference back to Ireland, Che’s father visited Ireland after Che’s death and made this quote in reference to “Irish rebels” and throughout his life continued to press his own affinity and identification with being “Irish”, and thus the quote is notable for inclusion. As a result you can find numerous murals throughout Ireland which incorporate Che’s image and his “Irish-ness”. I am not sure of the genesis, for your pre-occupation or offense to Che’s father noting his own viewed Irish heritage, but it does meet criteria for inclusion and is sourced. Now what current day Irish “rebels” do with such a fact is of their own volition, and not relevant to whether it should be included.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as noted in Che Guevara (photo), Che told Fitzpatrick that his grandmother was Irish and that his great-grandmother Isabel, was from Galway, with other family being from Cork. Fitzpatrick describes Che as "curious" about Ireland "from a revolutionary point of view" and remarks that Che proclaimed his "great admiration" for the fact that in his view, Ireland was the first country to "shake off the shackles of the British Empire".[23] Thus any tangential connection to "Irish rebels" is probably intentional and the way Che wanted it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the sourced quote you wish to delete comes from Che's own father. Of course it is notable the way his own father views him. I dare to say that his own father's view of what "flows through his viens" is more notable than a random anonymous editor on a wikipedia page.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure Che Guevara and his father were very nice to the Irish on their respective visits to Ireland and that one of them mentioned that his great great great grandfather was Irish. It all must have been very exciting for the IRA, enough to make murals out of it (???). In any case the facts are the facts. If some present or past terrorist organisation wants to lay claim to Che Guevara for their own ideological reasons it is not wikipedia's problem. Here is the Family Tree of Ernesto Che Guevara http://es.rodovid.org/wk/Persona:24256 As you can see. Only his grandmother Ana Isabel Lynch y Ortíz has any Irish heritage. Here: http://es.rodovid.org/wk/Persona:24285 you can see that Ana Isabel Lynch y Ortiz was the daughter of Francisco Lynch y Zavaleta and Eloisa Ortiz. --Damam2008 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damam, with all due respect I believe you are failing to see that it is irrelevant the actual % of Che's Irish background ... the fact of the matter is his family (by way of his father) viewed themselves as being "culturally" part Irish. Che's own father also apparently thought enough of his Irish ancestry to opine that it was relevant to Che's 'personal makeup' and thus related to his "rebellious" nature along with yes his Spanish background as well. In addition, nowhere have I mentioned anything about the IRA, and the term “Irish rebels” is synonymous with generations & centuries of rebellions in Ireland against British rule. Your use of the term “terrorist” is also irrelevant. Stop pretending to speak for Che’s family, and let his father speak for themselves.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that in Argentina, "anglo" names are associated with the most wealthy and powerful families in the country. Che's father probably double barreled his name and made such an emphasis for reasons of social prestige within Argentina. The bulk of Argentinians descend from immigrants from Spain and Italy mostly post-independence. It is nonsensical to claim that Che Guevara was "culturally" Irish in anyway, particularly considering that this one distant ancestor immigrated to Argentina 300 years ago. Its like claiming that Bill Clinton is culturally American Indian. --Damam2008 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damam, your original research WP:OR and unverified hypothesis on why Che’s father stressed his Irish heritage is interesting (and possibly correct), but unfortunately not a reliable source on the issue. All of your ruminations as to the motivations for Che’s father noting Che’s Irish background could be valid, but they would still not be applicable for inclusion. We are only here to document the research of reliable published sources, and one such source (amongst many) note that Che’s father found Che’s Irish ancestry significant enough to make the aforementioned quote, and thus we make note of it. If Bill Clinton’s Mother stated that her Mothers Indian background was vital to Clinton's overall worldview or contributed to his personality, then of course such a statement would be worthy of inclusion, regardless of the “scientific” validity or possible "absurdity" of such a claim. Your personal desire or ‘crusade’ to diminish the “Anglo-centric” influence on Wikipedia is in part noble, but misplaced in this instance, as the perspective displayed is one of Che’s very own father – not a random bystander with a “theory”.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That final comment was simply a reflection. I guess the section is fine now as it stands, even though much interesting info on his background has been omitted. Just be careful not to go overdrive on the whole Irish thing. --Damam2008 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys slow down. Every time I;ve glanced at recent change patrol today I;ve sene this article edited. Why the huge rush all of a sudden? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Damiens.rf is attempting to template the article as containing "too many quotes" (see --> WP:QUOTE) , without any previous discussion of the matter. From current experience with him in our "de-facto quote edit-war", I already know that he/she believes articles should contain NO quotes whatsoever (as he has made it his crusade to currently delete all quotes in Che Guevara related articles). Thus, I figured I would provide this space here for other editors who have been working on the current Che Guevara article to discuss the issue of "over quoting" --- as it relates specifically to this article.

Also Damiens, you are encouraged to (1) offer your rationale here for why you feel the article contains too many quotes, (2) offer up a revised version of the article for how you think it should read (with respect to maintaining the information contained within the quotes themselves if possible, per wiki policy), (3) or offer up specific and cited wiki policy which you believes justifies the removal of ALL quotes within articles. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would appreciate to keep the topic on the content, and not on me (or any other editor, as a matter of fact). In this spirit, I ask for help on taking each of the 5 quotations on this article, examine them for presence of factual information or notable sayings, and incorporate the actual info in the article.

To raise awareness about this ongoing effort, the article should remain tagged. --Damiens.rf 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens, missing from your above reply is any rationale on why you feel the article contains "too many quotes", and why you feel justified in believing that it is wiki policy to ensure that no quotes remain? Is it your view that (1) The article contains too many quotes? Or that it should contain no quotes whatsoever? Is it your view that (2) These particular quotes are not notable enough for inclusion? Or that no notable quotes are worthy of being used in a quote format? Before other editors can "help" you, alleviate your concerns, you need to be more specific on your exact quandary with the article as it currently stands.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still, some other che-related article are in an even worse shape, like Che_(film)#Director_Soderbergh or Che_Guevara_(photo) (where some good work has been started by User:Rogerb67). --Damiens.rf 20:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep discussion on this article itself as I previously requested.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should use quotes when we have something to say about the quoted text, or when what was said is important (and not just "related") to the topic. I fail to see how some (if not all) quotes in this article (and in the other mentioned) are fulfilling any role other than decoration. It's not about too many or too few quotes. As long as each quote is justified, you can have how many of them you desire. But in the case of these articles, so far, they seem to be just beautiful and inspiring phrases said by great people. Wikiquote is where they belong. --Damiens.rf 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "important" and "related" is in the eye of the beholder, and requires a full understanding of the topic at hand (which I believe I have). Moreover, quotes are not like images where you have a corroborating page to justify your fair use (which you seem to be implying we should do). As for "beautiful" or "inspiring" phrases, that is a matter of your opinion, and I would disagree, and state that they are directly relevant to the preceding text in each instance, and made by notable people related to the subject at hand (particularly quotes by Che himself, or his father, which are of course highly relevant and comprise 3 of the 5 disputed uses).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Wikipedia should not be seen as an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. --Damiens.rf 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) --- Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens.rf, you said, (quote) "We should use quotes when we have something to say about the quoted text, or when what was said is important (and not just "related") to the topic." I don't think those are the only reasons to use quotes. Quotes can be like images: to show what Guevara sounded like, not only what he looked like. Quotes can be the best way to convey some information in some cases, instead of a Wikipedian sentence. Quotes are used frequently in some articles I edit, such as Circumcision.

I see these quotes of Guevara:

• a longish quote at the beginning of the Guatemala section

  This is important: it illustrates the development of his way of thinking, which led to the course of his whole career.

• "the most painful days of the war"

  Illustrates what conditions were like more concisely than a Wikipedian sentence could.

• "My survival instincts took over"

  This quote serves to emphasize the extremity of the situation he went through and to describe what it was like from his point of view.

• a longish quote at the beginning of the "leaves Cuba" section

  We report that he spoke at the United Nations. What he said there is of more interest to the reader, I think, than merely reporting the fact that he spoke there. This quote illustrates his ideology.

• "This is the history of a failure"

  This quote serves a dual purpose of commenting on the Congo mission, and illustrating Guevara's attitude towards it.

• stating that it was "anti-pedagogical" to expect campesino students to be educated there, while "government officials drive Mercedes cars" ... declaring "that's what we are fighting against."

  The above quote seems to me to illustrate Guevara's ideology nicely.

• "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."
• "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."

  These quotes of what he is alleged to have said just before he was killed are notable and are important commentary on his (alleged) character and attitude towards death and towards the relationship between himself and the rest of humankind, which could not be illustrated in any other way.

There are also numerous quotes of other people. I think probably Che Guevara should be quoted more often in this article than anyone else. I would be disappointed in the article if it had no quotes of him. An important aspect of Guevara is his ideology, his way of thinking. This is more important than how he looked (as opposed to an article about an actor, for example, where images might be more important). The article needs to illustrate something about his way of thinking, and quotes can do that.

If you have problems with any specific quotes, please discuss those particular quotes. At the moment my position is that I oppose deleting any of the above quotes, but I'm open to arguments. I oppose having an over-quote tag on the article unless arguments are raised against specific quotes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Copper, and Damiens desire for a tag is irrelevant for now anyway, as he was just blocked again for the 2nd time in 2 days for a week.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is a criticism section of stalinist murderer and butcher?

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one paragraph in the "Legacy" section. bogdan (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Good Wikipedia articles don't usually have separate "criticicm" sections, but mix any criticism among comments in other sections where they are relevant, so that the entire article is NPOV, rather than having one section from one point of view (POV) and another section from another POV. If you think there's a POV that's not adequately represented in the article, I suggest that you state on this talk page some precise words that you suggest adding to the article, and cite a reliable source. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is also discussed in detail above.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Che Guevara in the category Anti-globalization?

AFAIK, marxists supported international integration, more explicitely their version of globalization, Proletarian internationalism. bogdan (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is most likely in that category because his ideas, and his denunciations of "neocolonialism" have been utilized by those who oppose the current neo-liberal policies identified as "globalization." Fidel Castro for instance has repeatedly cited Che's own statements to not only critique globalization, but to show how in his mind - Che was "prophetic" in his criticisms and warnings of such a system.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you can interpret Jesus' words to say that his statements were a critique of globalization. That's just POV: The category doesn't belong there. bogdan (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus' words were heavily utilized amongst many in the anti-globalization movement, then your red herring/analogy might be relevant. Che's critiques of what we now call "globalization” existed before the term was clearly defined ... however this does not negate the fact that his ideas do bear relevance in the anti-globalization community and are accurately identified as not only a ideological pre-cursor, but an “early warning” by those who prescribe to an anti-globalization ethos. There is nothing POV, about such a reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think if you go to an anti-globalization rally you might find people carrying placards with Che's image on them. A web search for "Che anti-globalization" has about 40,000 hits. If my arithmetic is right, that's about 5% of all the hits for "anti-globalization". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]