Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Communism Portal selected

Military history FA‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	Biography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Argentina Top‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve Che Guevara, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Controversial-ital-bold Template:Jimboresourcing

1 2 3 4

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

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

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

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

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

I'm argentinian and I explain that "che" is an expression used colloquially to call the attention of a person. Just like the example of one user, the phrase "¡Che, flaco! ¿qué hacés?" means literally "Hey, dude! what you do?". In fact, "flaco" means "slim", but in the phrase it works like "dude". In this case, "che" means "hey". "Che" is also used meaning "dude" in another kind of phrases like "No te preocupes, che", meaning "Don't worry, dude". How you can see, the word have not an exact definition, because it varies depending the situation. However, the use of the word is to speak to a relative, not for formal use.

My english is poor, I'm sorry of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.207.60 (talk)

Thank you, User:201.252.207.60, for this clear explanation and the excellent examples. I hope that you won't mind that I am going to move your comment up to the section where the discussion re the meaning of the term "che" is in progress -- I am doing this because down here it is somewhat of an "orphan" and editors and/or readers who have been following the discussion in that section might not see your contribution if it remains in a separate section down here. Polaris999 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Comment has now been integrated into the section Meaning of term "Che".) -- Polaris999 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:201.252.207.60´s description is indeed pretty accurate.--Rataube 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that the term "che", which is identical in use and pronunciation as the catalan vocative "xé", has been tracked back to the medieval Spanish word, "ce" (pronounced "tse"), whose purpose was to address someone whose name was not known (in Lombardy, North Italy, there's a "ce" word as well, with similar meaning and pronunciation). This spanish term is assumed to derive from the latin "st" (as documented in Cicero and Terentius, among others). Sources for this explanation are Athos Espíndola ("Diccionario del Lunfardo", Buenos Aires, 2002) and Angel Rosenblat ("Filología" magazine, Buenos Aires, 1962). Sadly, I could not find online links to those resources. Other, less well accepted, ethymologies track this word back to the mapuche language (which is an aborigin population of Argentina), where the word "che" should mean "man" or "son", the very name of this people contains the word: mapu-che (which literally should mean "man", or "son", "of the earth").

Not that this information bears much importance in Che's biography, but if you deem it important or at least interesting, feel free to add it to the article.--EmirCalabuch

That would belong in the article Che, which is about the word, not the person. I'll copy your remarks to that talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Norum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I persume you are referring to the Polish September Campaign. It was certainly a troubled time for the whole of Europe but Poland definatly suffered particularly bad. Still, I don't think it's fair to blame a socio-economic philsophy for the deaths of all those people. Just like the recent Iraq invasion by the USA (should they be called "the Capatalists"?), which has resulted in the deaths of around 40,000+ Iraqis, the Poland September Campaign was an invasion by one regime, largely due to political relations with many others.

Besides, people don't tend to refer to the Nazi's as the "Capatalists - who executed 8 million people", no they refer to them by their correct name: "the Nazi's", just as the regime which invaded Poland wasn't "The Communists", it was "the Soviet Union", a regime actually opposed by Che Guevara. Not that any of this has anything to do with him. Capatalism isn't defined as being "evil" simply because of what the Nazi's did, so neither should communism be defined as "evil" because of what the Soviet Union did. They are both socio-economic philosophies that both get implemented in however good or evil ways the implementors in charge choose. Canderra 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would someone refer to the Nazis as "Capitalists"? They were a form of socialists, with government regulated prices and productions. The fact that company owners were still owners on paper has little to do with it, since they were told exactly what - and how much - to produce, by the government.

Same with America. The US of A isn't a capitalist nation, it's a heavily mixed economy, like all of Europe. It's more capitalist than most (all?) of Europe, sure, but it's not free from heavy government regulations on trade and production.193.11.202.125 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Norum

My point was Poland was invaded by another country not a socio-economic policy, the idea of a artificial train of thought taking physical form is a tad obsurd. It's the exact same as stating that the atrocities commited by the Nazis were committed by the "Capitalists" rather than the "Nazis".

Your point is idiotic. Most capitalist countries do not commit large scale attrocities. OTOH almost every communist dictatorship commits attrocities including USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethopia (yes the famines in Ethopia were caused by the communist government), Cuba (through their death camps) etc. The total death toll from communism is estimated to be 100 million

Unfortunatly, imprisonment and execution of previous leaders by a victor is not at all uncommon after a war. It is still happening today (e.g. Bosnian war, Iraq War and many others) and will likely always occur. I am not trying to justify what they (The Soviet Union) did at all, but it is important to recognise who "they" were and not to over-generalise.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Che Guevara, who wasn't even much of a fan of the Soviet Union anyway. I'm not trying to glorify anything here, but this is all entirely unrelated to communism, let alone Che Guevera. Canderra 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soviet Russia and Maoist China were not "interpretations" of socialism, they were its ultimate expression. Means aren't distributed, they are earned, and the deaths of the elderly in France's recent heat wave show European notions of social care. --M4-10 09:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US is the perfect case study for JK Galbraith's expression "private affluence and public squalor". Shame on you. 86.137.14.147 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV. Is the US the ultimate expression of captialism? As for the "recent heat wave": Overall live expectancy in France is about two years higher than in the US (according to the CIA World Factbook). Live expectancy in "socialist" Sweden is higher still. But none of these countries is "socialist", they have a social market economy. --Stephan Schulz 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden has the best standard of living (for all) in the world. There is definately something more civilised having a strong social policy at the heart of your culture. Social justice is the mark of a mature, humane society. 62.3.70.68 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what you don't understand is that truly advanced societies allow all to reach their highest potential- in the US, you don't have mommy(aka government) guaranteeing you everything, but you have freedom. For some, myself included, although it comes with personal responsibility, being free is far better than being a child for your entire life. Oh well...some people just aren't mature enough to handle that kind of responsiility. 71.241.68.99 17:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have your society guaranteeing anything. You get ill - pay up. Oh you can't afford insurance? You die then. Nice that your potential and opportunities in life are based on your own personal wealth. If that's your opinion of bring advanced and grown-up then you can keep it. You seem to be brainwashed into the thought that social justice is incompatable with freedom. How many below minimum wage Walmart workers are truely free? They must feel really responsible having to have 2 jobs just to make bread line - but hey they're Mexican so what do you care? Enjoy driving your 4x4 to the mall on 50c a gallon petrol and feeling superior because your in the moneyed section of the US economy. I really wish you a mishap that requires help from others and its not there. 62.3.70.68 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about the spelling might belong in the article Che, but probably not here. I'll add the redirect, though (not that very many English-speakers throw accents into searches). -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Adding accents to monosyllabic Spanish words is pretty unusual. It is usually done only to distinguish two otherwise identically spelled words: for example, "¿Qué dices?" vs. "Lo que me importa…" or "…lo más importante" vs. the (now largely archaic) "mas" as a synonym for "pero". I wouldn't be surprised to see an accent on "¡Ché!" used to get someone's attention, but wouldn't expect to see it on "Che" used as a name. But I'm not a native speaker, and while I'm pretty knowledgable on Argentine Spanish, I'm no expert. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The accent he is refering to is called "diacritic" (acento diacrítico); I've never read an accentuated "che". It is a mistake to accentuate that word since there are no other homophones; even in Che Guevara it wouldn't, since the Che is derived from the original. Plober 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jmabel. I feel more comfortable leaving it "Che" instead of starting a possibly misguided crusade to add the accent. I can see that this may be a case of little documentation about something that native speakers take for granted, and non-Spanish-speakers are in ignorance about. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Che, definitely without accent. --Marianocecowski 07:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a book by el Che (pasajes de la guerra revolucionaria), printed in Cuba, and that uses the spelling without an accent. DirkvdM 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And correctly so. Here is a bit of background: Historically, monosyllabic Spanish nouns ending in "e" had been accented. Therefore, if you look at one of the peso bills that Che signed while he was President of the National Bank of Cuba, you will see that he accented the "e" in "Che". Circa 1962, the REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA in Madrid, which sets orthographical and grammatical standards for the Spanish language, issued a ruling to the effect that it made no sense to have an accent on monosyllabic words, except to differentiate between homonyms (such as "te" and "té"), and that therefore, from that time forward, the accent should not be used on the "e" of non-homonymous words. Che immediately adopted the new spelling and his signatures after that date do not have an accent on the "e". Moreover, while he was being held captive in the school room in La Higuera, Bolivia [8-9 October 1967], he noticed that on the blackboard the teacher had written the word "fé" [faith] with the archaic accent on the "e"; when she [Julia Cortés] came into the school room later and they had a conversation, he explained to her about the ruling by the RAE and suggested that she erase the accent from the word so that it would be correctly written (i.e., "fe"), which she did. Polaris999 04:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am inserting here a scan of his signature to remove all doubts about this matter ... Polaris999 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Polaris999. I hope it settles the matter also. Good reference to go by.--Dakota ~ 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, well done to all who contributed, I have always wondered about the validity of the accent myself. Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to have stopped one or more anonymous users constantly re-inserting the accent but oh well, this article witnesses a lot worse vandalism. Canderra 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Dakota

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the story related by Anderson is summarized in the article's Content Note entitled "Birthdate" as follows:

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

This Content Note is linked to in the first sentence of the first paragraph, right after the date "14 June 1928".

It was the consensus of all of the editors working on the article just prior to its being nominated for FA status that this was the correct way to handle the matter of the birthdate, and this is the version that was promoted to FA. If you want to read further detail about this subject and how the decision was reached, please consult the Archives (listed at the top of this page). Also, in the future, kindly sign your comments. Polaris999 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

From what I know of the policy of adding external links, non-English links are to be avoided on the English Wikipedia. Exceptions are made when they have information that is not available on any other English language external link or the article itself, which is not the case in this article. However, after digging deeper it would seem that this link in particular can be considered an "official" link seeing how it is hosted at the Cuban Ministry of Culture (I misunderstood what was meant by "cult" in the cult.cu domain) and therefore it should stay.

However, we have now had another Spanish link added (http://www.echeguevara.com.ar). Should this one stay? Earlier there was a Russian and Dutch link that was removed. Should those also be brought back? Cabanos 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that consensus has been reached re inclusion of the Che, Guía y Ejemplo site. I do think that Cabanos has directed our attention to a matter that needs consideration: i.e., the desirability of clearly labelling external links to foreign language sites so that readers who do not know the language in question will not click on them assuming that they are in English. To make this differentiation as clear as possible, I have set up a separate sub-section for links to Spanish-language sites within the External Links section, and the same can be done for other languages, as appropriate.

Concerning the site Revista Social "Proyecto Che Guevara" mentioned by Cabanos above, I have removed it because (1) although it purports to be a non-profit site, it is filled with advertisements and (2) my review of it so far has failed to turn up any information not already presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. On the positive side, it would be interesting to have a link to an Argentina-based site, but I am just not certain that this one meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have an opinion on this matter, please present your reasons for supporting or opposing its inclusion here on the Talk page.

I have also removed the newly-added site, Che Guevara Information Archive because (1) it devotes much of its space to commercial advertising, (2) it seems to be seriously out of date and (3) my review of it so far has failed to uncover any information not presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. Again, if others disagree, please present your reasons for supporting its inclusion here on the Talk page.

Concerning the Russian and Dutch language sites referenced by Cabanos, the reasons that they were excluded were, in the first case, that the Russian site continuously caused problems during loading and, in the second case, because none of the editors working on the CG article at the time the link to the Dutch language site was added had sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language to be able to evaluate that site. Here, too, these decisions are open to discussion and could be reversed if the problems mentioned are overcome. Polaris999 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/

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

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

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

It's kind of funny, as I am not from the USA I had not heard of the "National Review" before. Logging onto their website though, the first thing I am greeted with is a quote stating in large letters "There is no solid evidence that we’ve locked the ice caps in to a melting trend." and then the next line of text is a statement from the editors: "The Senate isn’t serious about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws". I think these statements give a clear indication of the political views of that publication. I have not yet read the article you mention but I think it should be treated with about as much scepticism as if it cam from a magazine called the "Communist Review". Canderra 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Review like New Republic or The Nation is a political journal so it does have an opinion. But it has over 50 years of journalist history that is impeccable....it has fewer incidents of plagarism or straight up made up stories than the NY Times. Also read the essays of Humberto Fontova — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:User talk:24.115.57.233|User talk:24.115.57.233]] ([[User talk:User talk:24.115.57.233#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User talk:24.115.57.233|contribs]])

National Review is very notable, just like the above mentioned sources. Also if we are going to use KGB agent/journalist Richard Gott as a source than anything goes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Review is a far-right propagandistic and Bush Administration apologist vehicle. As for anyone "tortured or killed [b]y this thug," that's original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As far as the National Review having "over 50 years of journalist history that is impeccable," that's POV bunk -- it trumpeted the non-existent WMDs in Iraq and still insists they exist. 4.232.228.62 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Review is conservative, but there are those generally on the Left who are uncomfortable with Che. Film critic Roger Ebert is certainly not right-wing, but in his review of The Motorcycle Diaries he says, "Che Guevara makes a convenient folk hero for those who have not looked very closely into his actual philosophy, which was repressive and authoritarian."[1] There are other criticisms among liberals, and some Leftists, when it comes to Che some of them are dealt with in the article.--T. Anthony 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guevara was a communist, plain and simple. I think that ideology's despicable track record speaks for itself, regardless of whether the National Review is a piece of "far-right propaganda" or not. --Impaciente 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Che is repeatedly called a "Marxist" in the course of the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. As far as I know, Che called himself "Communist", not "Marxist", and "Marxist" is therefore OR. Additionally, his authoritarian politics are more in line with quasi-fascists like Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong than Karl Marx, who influenced anarchist thought. Article should definitely be changed to say "Communist", but I have no doubt there will be opposition so I'm raising the idea here. --Switch 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the dicussion: The topic to distinquish between Marxist and Comminist has been discussed before, this from the archives:[2] --Dakota ~ 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Che continually described himself as a "Marxist", a "Marxist-Leninist" and, less frequently, "a communist", as can be observed in the following excerpts from a few of his speeches and writings:

Porque hay que recordar siempre que el marxista no es una máquina automática y
fanática dirigida, como un torpedo, mediante un servomecanismo hacia un
objetivo determinado. De este problema se ocupa expresamente Fidel en una de
sus intervenciones: «¿Quién ha dicho que el marxismo es la renuncia de los
sentimientos humanos, al compañerismo, al amor al compañero, al respeto al
compañero, a la consideración al compañero? ¿Quién ha dicho que el
marxismo es no tener alma, no tener sentimientos? Si precisamente fue el amor
al hombre lo que engendró el marxismo, fue el amor al hombre, a la humanidad, el
deseo de combatir la desdicha del proletariado, el deseo de combatir la
miseria, la injusticia, el calvario y toda la explotación sufrida por el proletariado, lo
que hace que de la mente de Carlos Marx surja el marxismo cuando precisamente
podía surgir el marxismo, cuando precisamente podía surgir una posibilidad
real y más que una posibilidad real, la necesidad histórica de la Revolución
social de la cual fue intérprete Carlos Marx. Pero, ¿qué lo hizo ser ese intérprete
sino el caudal de sentimientos humanos de hombres como él, como Engels, como
Lenin?»

Esta apreciación de Fidel es fundamental para el militante del nuevo partido,
recuérdenlo siempre, compañeros, grábenselo en la memoria como su arma
más eficaz contra todas las desviaciones. El marxista debe ser el mejor, el más
cabal, el más completo de los seres humanos pero, siempre, por sobre todas
las cosas, un ser humano; un militante de un partido que vive y vibra en contacto
con las masas; un orientador que plasma en directivas concretas los deseos a veces
oscuros de la masa; un trabajador incansable que entrega todo a su pueblo;
un trabajador sufrido que entrega sus horas de descanso, su tranquilidad
personal, su familia o su vida a la Revolución, pero nunca es ajeno al calor
del contacto humano. "Obras escogidas", pg 251 (Prólogo al libro El partido
marxista-leninista, publicado por la Dirección Nacional del Partido Unido de
la Revolución Socialista de Cuba, La Habana, 1963.)


========================================


Estos dos momentos difíciles de la revolución, que hemos analizado
someramente, se obvian cuando los partidos dirigentes marxistas-leninistas
son capaces de ver claro las implicaciones del momento y de movilizar las masas al
máximo, llevándolas por el camino justo de la resolución de las contradicciones
fundamentales. "Obras escogidas", pg 95 (Cuba Socialista, septiembre de 1963.)


========================================


El militante del Partido Unido de la Revolución es un marxista; debe conocer el marxismo
y debe aplicar consecuentemente, en su análisis, el materialismo dialéctico para poder
interpretar el mundo cabalmente.

...

Por eso el marxismo es solamente una guía par la acción. Se han descubierto las
grandes verdades fundamentales, y a partir de ellas, utilizando el materialismo
dialéctico como arma, se va interpretando la realidad en cada lugar del mundo. Por
eso ninguna construcción será igual; todas tendrán características peculiares, propias
a su formación.

"Obras escogidas", pg 270 (Discurso en la asamblea general de trabajadores de la Textilería
Ariguanabo, 24 de marzo de 1963)
 

========================================


Agradezco al señor Stevenson su referencia histórica a mi larga vida como
comunista y revolucionario que culmina en Cuba. Como siempre, las agencias
norteamericanas, no sólo en noticias, sino de espionaje, confunden las cosas. Mi
historia de revolucionario es corta y realmente empieza en el Granma y sigue
hasta este momento. No pertenecía al Partido Comunista hasta
ahora que estoy en Cuba y podemos proclamar todos ante esta Asamblea el
marxismo-leninismo que sigue como teoría de acción la Revolución cubana.
"Obras Escogidas", pg 405 (Tomado del folleto Ha sonado la hora postrera del colonialismo, 
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores)

========================================

I will be glad to provide many more examples, if someone considers those presented above to be insufficient.

Polaris999 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't know he had called himself a Marxist. Okay then, never mind. That's good enough for me. --Switch 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"his authoritarian politics are more in line with quasi-fascists like Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong than Karl Marx, who influenced anarchist thought." Not only is this comment not backed up with fact, it's simply not true. 82.176.194.151 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, improve it, don't revert it! --71.141.100.105 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins with a few mistakes:

"... was an Argentine-born physician, Marxist revolutionary, politician, and leader of Cuban and internationalist guerrillas."

First, the words "Argentine", "Marxist" and "Cuban" have not reason to appear in caps.

Second, Ernesto Guevara was a doctor (dermatologist), not a physician.

Third, the word "guerrillas" could be changed for "revolutions".

--201.253.80.77 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, just concerning medical practitioner status, physician/doctor are the same as in "the physician, Dr. Foo" with one being the profession the other the title.[3]--Dakota ~ 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User: 201.253.80.77 -- I would like to thank you for your contribution here on the Talk (Discussion) page of the Che Guevara article. The question of exactly what medical diploma Ernesto received, and what his correct professional title was, is a puzzle I have been trying to find the answer to ever since I began working on this article. Some time ago one person posted a lengthy document on Wikipedia which he claimed was a copy of Ernesto's transcript in the UBA Medical School. I asked for help from anyone familiar with such transcripts to determine whether or not this document appears to be legitimate, but no comments were forthcoming. I am therefore wondering if you might take a look at it and, if possible, give us your opinion about it. You can see it by clicking here: User talk:Pablo-flores/Archive3#A confusing situation (re Che Guevara's medical records). Your help in clarifying this matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Best regards, Polaris999 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the capitalization: In English, proper nouns and words derived from them are usually capitalized. --Stephan Schulz 05:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The professional title of Ernesto Guevara was "médico" (in spanish). In english it is equivalent of the "medical doctor" title, also physician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:200.82.56.23|200.82.56.23]] ([[User talk:200.82.56.23#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/200.82.56.23|contribs]])

Just to confirm Stephan Schulz here: in English, Argentine and Cuban must be capitalized; Marxist is usually capitalized, though it is less jarring to see it lowercased than these others, since there is some precedent for such transformation of people's names (sadistic and masochistic, quixotic). Still, I would guess that educated native speakers would run at least 20-1 in favor of always capitalizing Marxist, though maybe not the less politically-related Marxian/marxian (as in "A Marxian/marxian analysis"). - Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it won't offend anyone, but I substituted the Der Spiegel picture in the Legacy section for a picture of a poetry reading in front of a Che Guevara mural/painting at Colegio Cesar Chavez. There are four reasons I have done this: 1. As this is the English language website, most who visit this site are unfamiliar with the Der Spiegel publication, and therefore any significance of a Che cover will be lost on most visitors. Therefore, I think it is more relevant to have a picture from an institution that was in the United States. 2. Colegio Cesar Chavez was an activist institution that symbolically looked to Che Guevara, and in fact was almost named in his honor. And because Colegio was the first and only Chicano/Mexican-American college in the United States, it is quite notable in this context. It can in some ways be seen as an extension of Che's movement. 3. The picture in question has been released into the public domain, which I doubt the picture of Der Spiegel has been. My understanding is that Wikipedia prefers free pictures to fair use pictures. 4. I really believe that the picture from Colegio deserves to be on this page as I think it is of more historical pertinence than the Der Spiegel cover, but there just isn't enough room in that section for three pictures. -- Andrew Parodi 11:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to discuss major changes in the article here on the Talk page before making them. Therefore I am reverting the article to the way it was before you re-did the "Legacy" section and we will await comments from other editors to see whether they support or oppose the changes you are proposing. Thank you. Polaris999 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting here a link to a page that shows the changes you are proposing to make to the "Legacy" section so that other editors can see and evaluate them without having to search through the History page to find them: Modifications of the "Legacy" section proposed by User:Andrew Parodi

Polaris999 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have just discovered that a few minutes before you inserted the picture [[Image:Colegiopoetryreading.jpg]] into the "Legacy" section of the main "Che Guevara" article, you had inserted it into the article "Che Guevara in popular culture", i.e. 05:47, 13 June 2006 Andrew Parodi (adding Colegio Cesar Chavez picture). Even if the photo were a good one, which lamentably it is not, there would be no reason to include it in both the main "Che Guevara" article and the derivative ("child") article, "Che Guevara in popular culture". Consequently, there is no reason to give further consideration to your proposed modification of the "Legacy" section of the main "Che Guevara" article. Whether or not the inclusion of the photograph [[Image:Colegiopoetryreading.jpg]] in the "Che Guevara in Popular Culture" article is appropriate and/or desirable can be discussed between you and the editors who are working on that article on that article's Talk page. -- Polaris999 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the best picture, but it's more historically pertinent than the cover of a foreign magazine that most English speakers have never heard of. In regard to it already being on the "popular culture" page, many pictures on Wikipedia are shown on different pages.

For clarification, the reason the picture is in both places is because I found the "popular culture" article before I found the "legacy" section in this main article. If I had to choose, I'd refer for the picture to be in the legacy section of the main article, because Colegio Cesar Chavez really does not qualify as "popular culture."

I think it's significant that there was a mural of Che Guevara in Colegio Cesar Chavez, the only four-year Hispanic/Chicano in the nation. And I think it's significant that the founders of the college had considered naming the college "Colegio Che Guevara." I think it is at least worth mentioning in the article. And if you don't like the picture I put up, there is also this one: Image:Colegiopoetryreading2.jpg

Granted, they are not the best quality pictures, but they are over 20 years old at this point, and they capture an aspect of history, whereas the picture of the magazine captures, well, a magazine that most English speakers who visit this site have never heard of. Further, the mural on the wall of the Colegio building seems relatively in keeping with the other picture, which is of a mural (of sorts) of Che on the outside of a building. Lastly, as I mentioned, the image is a "free image", which I've heard is preferable to a "fair use" image. -- Andrew Parodi 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If neither of those two pictures are deemed appropriate, perhaps, just perhaps, this one would be. This is a page out of Colegio Cesar Chavez's student catalogue, and on the wall behind the men you can see the Che mural on the wall: Image:Bookletche.jpg. If it is decided that none of these pictures are appropriate, could we perhaps get a consensus that at least mentioning Colegio in the legacy section is appropriate? If you want the source that talks about the fact that Colegio Che Guevara was an early consideration for the name, that is mentioned in this book: Colegio Cesar Chavez, 1973-1983: A Chicano Struggle for Educational Self-Determination. -- Andrew Parodi 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao,Image:Bookletche.jpg appears to be from a spanish language book or magazine of antique vintage and I notice that the uploader perhaps mistakenly labeled it self made. Improperly licensed images are not permitted in articles. It needs to have the source and proper license and then it may be considered after a concensus of editors is made. --Dakota ~ 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of a page of the student catalogue of the Colegio Cesar Chavez, which is in both English and Spanish. As I mention on the photo description, there is no copyright information in that booklet whatsoever, nor is any photographer mentioned by name; the only way to know what era that catalogue is from is that it contains a schedule for classes for the year 1978. The institution the catalogue advertises went out of business in 1983. Therefore, finding the right tag is quite difficult for me. What would you suggest? (I placed the "self-made" tag there as a temporary tag, until I learned what tag would be more appropriate. I figured that in the meantime the "self-made" designation worked in a way, because I'm the one who scanned the catalogue.) As to the catalogue's source, as noted on the Colegio Cesar Chavez page, the catalogue is stored in the Oregon State University's Multicultural Archives, where it is made available to people studying Colegio Cesar Chavez. [4] -- Andrew Parodi 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola,this image which is low resolution contains no mention of Che Guevara or visible image of same and is labeled fair use which is more restrictive in it's use than free images. It is relevant to Colegio César Chávez and perhaps César Chávez but seems to lack rationale in this article.--Dakota ~ 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mural of Che Guevara is on the wall (right side) above the seated man. I have a higher resolution of the picture. I put the fair use tag on it because you said the other tag wasn't appropriate. However, I am still pretty certain that "fair use" isn't even necessary because I think the copyright has expired, as there is no copyright information in the book, no list of photographers, the college was a non-profit institution, and the institution closed over 20 years ago.

If the picture isn't acceptable, would anyone have any problem with me at least including a mention of Colegio Cesar Chavez in the legacy section? I think it's relevant that there was a mural of him in this school, the only Hispanic four-year college in the nation, and that they had considered naming the school after him. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Colegio Cesar Chavez had been named for Che Guevara instead of for Cesar Chavez that information might have been relevant for inclusion in the "Legacy" section of the Che Guevara article. The fact that the possibility of naming the Colegio for Che Guevara was considered, but it was decided instead to name it for Cesar Chavez means that it is not. This is a featured article and as such it must meet certain standards; it is already considered by some editors to be too long — that is why several of its sections have been split off into separate ('child') articles as you must have noticed since you have edited one of them, i.e. Che Guevara in popular culture. If you wish, we can explore the possibility of putting a link to the Colegio Cesar Chavez article in the Legacy category of the "See Also" section of the Che Guevara article. Then you can put any photos that you wish into the Colegio Cesar Chavez article (that I notice you are currently working on) and their quality and copyright status will not be of any concern to editors here. Does this alternative interest you? -- Polaris999 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the inclusion of at least a link would be interesting. Thanks. And for verification purposes, in case you're interested, here is a picture I just took of a page from the book Colegio Cesar Chavez, 1973-1983: A Chicano Struggle for Educational Self-Determination. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested: On the basis of the foregoing discussion, User:Andrew Parodi and I would like to propose that a link to the Colegio Cesar Chavez article be added to the Legacy category of the "See Also" section of the main "Che Guevara" article and we request the opinions of other editors about this.
Thank you -- Polaris999 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too see no reason why the link to Colegio Cesar Chavez could not be added to the Legacy category of the "See Also section".--Dakota ~ 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since three wikipedians are in support and no objections have been expressed, I have added a link to the Colegio César Chávez article to the Legacy category of the "See Also" section of the main Che Guevara article. -- Polaris999 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a micky mouse one - it looks funny.lol 222.154.55.35 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the photo of Che Guevara beside Ghandi was a bit peculiar. Is it asserted that Guevara was a non-violent revolutionary? DonPMitchell 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Der Spiegel article asserts that a synthesis has taken place between the followers of Gandhi and those of Guevara which has given rise to a new movement of "peaceful revolutionaries". -- Polaris999 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late comment, but most English speakers will be no more familiar with Colegio Cesar Chavez (even though it was located in the U.S.) than they are with Der Spiegel. Probably most who are aware of one are also aware of the other. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if perhaps others agree that the USA Today article that is linked to in this article is useless: [5] It's not so much that I disagree or agree with the statements made (though I do agree and disagree with some statements), it's just that overall this seems to be a terribly written article. I know that goes without saying, as it is USA Today. But what I was wondering was if perhaps better quality articles could be linked to with regard to criticism of Che. I'm sure some of his critics have more substantial statements to make than what is mentioned in this article. I mean, the article seems to say that we should be thankful Che wasn't successful or else we wouldn't have iPods, and that if he had been successful than we'd all be raising donkeys. The tone of the article seems to me to be juvenile. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Criticism" sub-section was contributed by some wikipedians who argued that the "Legacy" section of the article suffered from POV and that it was necessary that an "anti-Che" POV be presented to balance it. A consensus eventually developed that such "balance" was needed and the "Criticism" sub-section is the result. I believe that the particular editor who wrote the sentence including the reference to the USA Today article that you cite will be unable to respond to you because she has recently been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. I do not know whether some of the other people who collaborated with her in putting together that particular sub-section are still monitoring it and will wish to dialogue with you about the point you make (with which I personally tend to agree). While you are awaiting replies, my suggestion would be that, if you can find a better source than the USA Today article that says approximately the same thing, please bring it forward here on the Talk page so that others can see, evaluate and comment on the possibility of substituting it. -- Polaris999 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think the article touches on a good point. I think it's always unsettling to see political personalities turned into fashion icons by people who don't even know what they were about. But the article just isn't that good. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following link was added to the "External Links" section (English category) a few hours ago by User:24.44.45.54 without prior discussion so I have transferred it over here to the Talk page so that wikipedians can comment as to whether or not it is appropriate for inclusion there.

• Che Guevara: Anatomy of a Myth video - interviews of people close to Che Guevara

If you support its inclusion, please comment also as to whether it should be placed in the "English" or "Spanish" category of "External Links".

Thank you -- Polaris999 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaris, I added the link. I was unsure whether it should be under "English" or "Spanish" because the page is in English, but the video is Spanish. Apparently, it is a video critique of Che (I don't understand Spanish, unfortunately). Since, articles are supposed to be NPOV, links can be to differing views, so I do think the link should be included, and would be of interest to some people. In any case, I don't think it should be removed or censored. Maybe the seperate English/Spanish links section is too restricting. Maybe "Other". 24.44.45.54 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 24.44.45.54 -- If it were to go into a category called "Other", don't you think that many people might interpret "Other" to mean a language other than English or Spanish? Since the video clip is totally in Spanish, perhaps it could go into the "Spanish" category with an explanation in the description of the link to the effect that the introductory page of text is in English but the video clip itself is in Spanish? -- Polaris999 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polaris, You are probably right. The video is in Spanish. Frankly, it's kind of kooky the way they did that. English page, Spanish video. You would have thought that if someone is reading their page in English, they'd have a video dubbed in English available. I don't exactly know what the video is about, but it does look interesting. Have you watched it? I gather it's anti-Che, and you're pro-Che, so I appreciate your open-mindedness to allow a link to what you probably think is just propaganda. I usually try to look at all sides and try to make up my mind - which isn't always too easy. ;-) Anyway, will you move the link to the Spanish section, or should I? Thanks. P.S. What would you do with a web link to a page that is both English & Spanish!!

Hi 24.44.45.54 -- I am in a total quandary as to what to do with an external link to a page that is in both English & Spanish and that is why I asked for comments about how to handle it from other editors. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense that the intro page is in English and then the video clip 100% in Spanish without even providing English subtitles: One wonders exactly what audience the makers of this video were attempting to target with such a melange.

I was expecting that some Spanish-speaking wikipedians would view the videoclip and give their opinions about it so that I wouldn't have to give mine, but since no one has yet done so and you are eager to add the link, I will say that I have viewed and listened to it in its entirety and it is basically a group of senior citizens recalling their encounters with Che. The audio is not easy to listen to, but some of the video footage is interesting. It would be better to describe the individuals who speak on this video as "people who knew Che" rather than as "people who were close to Che" because in most cases they had only brief interactions with him. (There are some exceptions, such as Dariel Alarcón Ramírez aka "Benigno".) The same video footage is repeated over and over again in various sections which tends to make it quite boring after a while, On the positive side, it has the advantage that it presents real people expressing their views in their own words so that you don't have to wonder if they have been quoted correctly.

Why don't you go ahead and add it into the Spanish sub-section of "External Links" whenever you have the chance -- Polaris999 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Municipality of Rosario has just put up a sign indicating the location of Guevara's house (previously there wasn't any indication, then the current owners refused to let a plaque be placed directly on the house). I took a picture. The Municipality also sponsored a celebration of Guevara's 78th birthday with the presence of friends and the Cuban Ambassador (see poster). Just in case this is useful. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for bringing this to our attention. That is a very cool sign. I am going to try to figure out how to insert a link to it from somewhere within the main CG article. -- Polaris999 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am transferring this discussion from my Talk page to the Talk page of the Che Guevara article so that other wikipedians will be more likely to see it and can participate if they wish to do so ...

Background:

This discussion is focussed on the third sentence of the second paragraph of the "Criticism" sub-section of the main Che Guevara article. For many weeks that sentence had been as follows:

They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of thousands of people in Cuban prisons, and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.[61]

In two postings on 15 June 2006 , specifically. at 20:41, 15 June 2006 and at 20:43, 15 June 2006, User:12.98.133.245 modified the aforementioned sentence without prior discussion on this Talk page to read as follows:

They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of thousands of people in Cuban prisons and labor camps, which targeted gays, dissidents, and AIDS patients [2], and for the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.[61]

As soon as I saw this modification I reverted it with the following explanation:

21:34, 15 June 2006 Polaris999 (rv because absurd -- Guevara died in 1967, AIDS wasn't even discovered until December 1981: See AIDS )

User:12.98.133.245 then began a discussion on my Talk page, as follows:

== Che ==

Hey, I noticed that you rv'd my edit about Guevara's persecution of "gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims", made under my IP address. I just wanted to let you know that that was not intended as vandalism. In fact, it is nearly verbatim from the [link that accompanied it http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/]. However, you definitely have a valid point, and this is perplexing. What do you make of it? JianLi 05:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make of it that www.slate.com is not a reliable source. I hope that you will raise the matter with them, and I would be very interested to hear their response. -- Polaris999 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slate (magazine) is owned by the Washington Post. And the San Francisco Chronicle makes a similar point: "This camp was the precursor to the systematic confinement of dissidents, homosexuals, AIDS patients, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and Afro-Cuban priests." [6] JianLi 05:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems that they are referring to Guanahacabibes in Pinar del Rio province which Guevara set up as a disciplinary center for officials working in the Ministry of Industries while he was the Minister. The violations in question had to do with things such as extreme administrative negligence, accepting bribes, etc. Definitely nothing at all to do with AIDS (which would have been impossible since, as we discussed above, AIDS was not discovered until 14 years after his death) or questions of sexuality or religious beliefs. What did happen was that after Guevara left Cuba, the Guanahacabibes camp was transferred away from the Ministry of Industries and taken over by some other state entity and what happened there subsequently I do not know. But surely Guevara can not be held responsible for any abuses that may have occurred in that place after he had resigned all of his government posts, renounced his Cuban citizenship, and left Cuba!

Since we are discussing this matter, I would like to invite your attention to the hypothetical question of how Guevara, as a doctor, might have responded to the AIDS epidemic had he lived long enough to become aware of it. Perhaps you have seen or read The Motorcycle Diaries? If so, you will know that he chose the specialty of Dermatology because he had a particular concern for the suffering of leprosy patients, and that the whole point of the trip related in The Motorcycle Diaries was to get to the San Pablo Leper Colony in Perú in order to do volunteer work there. If you saw the film, you will also have seen how he rebelled against the administrators of the Leprosarium because of the way they treated the lepers as if they were a sub-class of humanity, how he refused to wear the "mandatory" gloves when shaking hands with or treating the patients and thereby aroused the ire of the administrators, etc. Based on these facts, and on his strong sense of solidarity with all those who were suffering or oppressed for whatever reason, I personally believe that he would have been at the forefront of those in the medical community who are fighting for compassionate and comprehensive treatment for all individuals who have AIDS or are HIV-positive.

Well, I have told you my opinion about this, and now I would very much like to hear yours. -- Polaris999 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I am signing this transfer here -- Polaris999 09:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

I don't know what to make of the AIDS issue, since I am merely going off of these sources. I have in fact seen the movie, but do you not think that it might have had a skewed POV? (think of who wrote the book) In any case, my desire to edit this page stems from conversations I've had with a former Cuban exile whose relatives were executed in the labor camps run by Guevara. To say the least, she was frustrated by the idealistic image of Guevara predominant in American culture. JianLi 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your own opinion of the extent of Guevara's involvement in labor camps and summary executions? I know that you have a great admiration for Guevara, based on how active you are in editing this article, but perhaps that makes it harder to look at the "less savory aspects of Guevara's life." My concern is that in the midst of his popularity, certain aspects of his life, which are necessary for the full historic truth, will be downplayed.JianLi 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Guanahacabibes, it was basically a type of "boot camp" for wayward bureaucrats and I consider it to be of no particular significance. It would be interesting to see a study showing what percentage of the individuals who went through the program there actually changed their errant ways once they were released but I am not aware that one was ever done. As for La Cabaña, I consider it most regrettable that Guevara was given that assignment, and equally regrettable that he accepted it. I deem it extremely perplexing that this was the only "job opportunity" that could be found for the comandante who had just won the decisive battle of the insurrectionary war. I suppose that as a military officer he could not refuse the assignment, but I certainly wish he had. -- Polaris999 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is "He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims." (italics mine). Slate's point isn't that Che killed AIDS victims (which is impossible), but he established a system that later killed AIDS patients. Kyle J Moore 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, very nice Kyle. I can't believe I was stupid enough to not have seen that; now that I have, it explains the supposed "impossibility."JianLi 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Concerning the modified text you inserted into the "Criticism" sub-section, i.e.:

(cur) (last) 15:43, 16 June 2006 JianLi (→Criticism)

(cur) (last) 15:42, 16 June 2006 JianLi (→Criticism)

(cur) (last) 15:41, 16 June 2006 JianLi (→Criticism)

(cur) (last) 15:18, 16 June 2006 JianLi (I added the stuff from the sources, without the AIDS part)

you need to fill in all of the information required as per WP:CITE in the source notes you added (currently numbered 61, 62 and 64), and you also need to add the three sources you used to the "Websites" sub-section of the "References" section. Please do this urgently -- remember that because this is a featured article full citations are required to meet the standards set by the Wikipedia Community for such articles in order for your contributions to remain in the article.

Viz: "Wikipedia articles often include inline citations, and in the case of Featured Articles (formally "Brilliant Prose" articles) and Featured Articles Candidates, inline citations are considered mandatory. A full citation should then be added to the References section at the end of the article. ", excerpted from WP:IC. -- Polaris999 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the missing required information detailed above has not been provided, I am transferring the edits in question (highlighted in red below) to this page; please include full citations and references as described above if re-adding them. Also, with regard to the second, please bear in mind that one sentence paragraphs are not allowed (see WP:MOS) so this text must be modified in some way to make it into two sentences, or incorporated into one of the other paragraphs in the section.

They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of thousands of people in Cuban prisons and labor camps, which targeted gays and dissidents^[1][2], and for the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.^[3]

In 2005, after Carlos Santana wore a Che shirt to the Academy Awards Ceremony, Cuban-born musician Paquito D'Rivera wrote an open letter castigating Santana for supporting "The Butcher of the Cabaña," the name of a prison where Guevara oversaw the execution of many dissidents, including D'Rivera's own cousin.^[4]

Polaris999 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I have now re-added them with full citations, in addition to adding the websites to the references:websites section. On a related subject, I can't help but noticing that many of the other websites cited aren't in the references:websites section, such as the various BBC articles. Should those be added to the references? JianLi 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the full citations and references. The "Criticism" section is looking better now. However, have you noticed that during the course of all of the recent editing of it someone (I didn't notice when it happened) has "orphaned" the comment about some critics thinking CG wasn't a doctor? Perhaps next time you are editing the section you might figure out how to merge that single sentence into another paragraph? That would be a great help if you would be willing to do it. Re the BBC websites that you point out are cited as sources but not included in the References section, definitely that situation needs to be corrected -- I'm not sure who added those links, so I'll try to fix them myself ASAP. Thank you for alerting me to them -- Polaris999 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I see the timeline? It's just a line for me. If I open directly the template, I see the same. NCurse _work 07:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is very puzzling. Can you see other Wikipedia timelines? -- Polaris999 08:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I can see the others. Can't understand why... :) NCurse _work 08:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor modification to the template. If you have a chance to try viewing the timeline again, I would appreciate very much hearing the results. Thank you -- Polaris999 09:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now it works. Thank you. :) NCurse _work 09:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is good news. Many thanks to you, NCurse _work, for bringing this problem to our attention! --Polaris999 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a lifelong hiker and outdoorsman, and I've never heard this expression, to travel "rough". Is this British usage? Esbullin

I do not know in which country the usage originated, but I assume it is derived from the idiom "to rough it". The following is from The Free Dictionary

"Idiom:

rough it

To live without the usual comforts and conveniences: roughed it in a small hunting shack."

-- Polaris999 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bit British (also "to sleep rough", meaning to lie down wherever there is a space available, usually outdoors). I'm afraid I've bounced back and forth enough that if I learned a phrase past age 17 or so, I'm sometimes not sure which side of the Atlantic it comes from. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need documentation on the statement attributed in this article to Guevara that had the nuclear missiles of the Cuban Missile Crisis been under Cuban rather than Soviet control, they (presumably meaning he and Castro) would have fired them against major US cities. No other aspect of this man's life is as important. If it is accurate, and he seriously favored the direct murder of millions in an act that would certainly have triggered all-out nuclear holocaust and the death of billions and a collapse of civilization, it is safe to say that history will eventually see him for what he must have been: a dangerous, malevolent lunatic. If it is not accurate, the debate will go on... I will be trying to ferret out sources on this, but my time and energy is severely limited due to illness. I urge others to find reliable references and link to or quote from them on this Talk page so we can craft a definitive paragraph on this point for the article. Thx. JDG 14:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Jon Lee Anderson quoting the Daily Worker less than adequate documentation? - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) I see this topic was re-opened below - Jmabel | Talk 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence appears in the Bolivia section: "In September, however, the Army managed to eliminate two guerrilla groups, reportedly killing one of the leaders". It isn't very clear what this means or how relevant it is. Who were these groups? Twittenham 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Twittenham. I have been waiting for some other editor to reply to your query but many of them are away from wikipedia now that summer has arrived. I just want to tell you that I think that your point is very well taken and that I will address it soon if no one else does. -- Polaris999 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit [7] by Ismoot adding that the operation capturing Che was a CIA and Special Forces Op. I left a msg on his user talk explaining that I did it b/c the edit didn't meet WP:V.--Kchase02 T 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kchase02. I appreciate your diligence in applying the standards of WP:V to this article which tends to have many problems in that area.

As you have probably noticed, the role of the U.S. Army in the operation against Guevara's guerrillas is touched upon in the "Bolivia" section of this article, i.e.

He had expected to deal only with the country's military government and its poorly trained and equipped army. However, after the U.S. government learned of his location, CIA and other operatives were sent into Bolivia to aid the anti-insurrection effort. The Bolivian Army was being trained, and probably directly assisted, by U.S. Army Special Forces advisors, including a recently organized elite battalion of Rangers trained in jungle warfare.

Although the wikipedian who wrote that paragraph did not provide a source, I am able to do so. The document I would like to reference is entitled Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Activation, Organization and Training of the 2d Ranger Battalion – Bolivian Army, and it can be found at Memorandum.

On the basis of this document and other materials I have studied, I believe that it would be more accurate to describe the operation in question as User:Ismoot did, i.e. "a CIA/ U.S. Army Special Forces-organized military operation" and therefore I would like to incorporate this change into the second paragraph of the lead section as he suggested. But, before doing so, I want to ask you whether you consider that the source I have cited is adequate to justify such an inclusion? -- Polaris999 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a postscript here: I would like to mention another source. Henry Butterfield Ryan, in his book "The Fall of Che Guevara" has an entire chapter about the role of the U.S. Special Forces entitled "The Green Berets". It begins with the words:

"Bolivia is the best thing we ever did", said Major Ralph "Pappy" Shelton, leader of a Green Beret Mobile Training Team (MTT), the Pentagon's traveling groups that helped train friendly armed forces, mostly in the arts of counterinsurgency.

The "Green Berets" chapter covers pages 82-102 of the op.cit. -- Polaris999 03:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligent and conscientious responses, Polaris. Your sources look excellent and I now have no objection to referencing a joint U.S. Army Special Forces/CIA operation. I must admit that I didn't notice the reference to the Army in the Bolivia section. Thank you as well for pointing that out to me. Since you are a frequent editor of that article, I'll defer to your judgment about where best to place these references. I will contact Ismoot and update him. Thanks again.--Kchase02 T 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 80 kilobytes long. Some parts could probably be trimmed off and placed in seperate parts. 64.111.128.11 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a stadium named after Guevara?

"Che Stadium"?

72.82.195.2 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, in New York City, NY US there is Che Stadium.--Dakota ~ 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) ;)[reply]

I hope that was a very bad pun on your part.

72.68.171.50 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite a bad pun, very out of place but perhaps you were just kidding.--222.98.9.39 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link is for those not from the U.S. who may not have gotten the joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of this joke may possibly lie in the article on The Rutles (A British Beatles parody from the late 1970's). Britmax 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least, from my vantage point.

That's what this article seems like to me.

Do you think it would be possible to either substantially expand the criticism portion, or-at the very least-move it further up in the article?

72.68.171.50 23:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more information to include, you're welcome to do so. I don't see it as a puff piece, so I think the topical order is fine as it stands. —Down10 ^TACO 07:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cuba's labor camp system was eventually used to jail "gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims."" Its quite certain than Guevara himself didn't jail any AIDS victim.... Ericd 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say, he most certainly did not. He also did not send any "dissidents, gays, or religious believers" there. The text in the "Criticism" section needs to be revised to make this clear -- would you perhaps be interested in undertaking this? (As you have probably seen elsewhere on this page, I have already dialogued at length about this matter, but it seems my point has not gotten through so I have given up trying to explain it.) -- Polaris999 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At 04:41, 18 June 2006, User:4.154.72.112 added the following sentence to the "Criticism" section:

Other commentators such as former radical radical David Horowitz derided Guevara's status among affluent Western youth as a symbol of adolescent rebellion by calling him "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle." ^[5]

The source given for the above statement is, first, not presented in the standard WP format as per WP:CITE; second, when I went to the amazon.com site to which it links and searched inside the book by David Horowitz presented there, the name "Morrison" did not appear on any page of the book, therefore the cited work cannot be the source for the statement in question (see WP:V).

While it is possible that Horowitz made such a statement, the correct source must be cited if it is to be included in the CG article, and this information must be provided both in a source note in the format used throughout this article (i.e., <ref></ref>) and in the appropriate section of the "References" section. -- Polaris999 06:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I obviously misremembered. If I find the exact source I'll resubmit. [[User:The Sanity Inspector|The Sanity Inspector}}

Good luck on finding it -- I thought it made a good wrap-up sentence there at the end of the "Criticism" section which is why I tried to find the necessary information to complete the source note and reference in order to keep it there. Am hoping you will have more success in sourcing it than I did so that it can be restored ... -- Polaris999 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Perhaps this is a clue you can use in attempting to track down the quote. Having already searched exhaustively and unsuccessfully for any page combining the names "David Horowitz", "Che Guevara" and "Jim Morrison", and then for the statement itself, I decided to proceed on the hypothesis that someone other than David Horowitz might have made the comment in question. After several minutes of googling, this led me to the following:

In a 1987 article in Spin, Scott Cohen, in an imaginary meeting with Che in a cafe to discuss the revolution in America, compares Che to Jim Morrison (as to Fidel Castro's Jerry Garcia).

Do you think this attribution may be correct? If you ever happen to have access to the 1987 issues of Spin, perhaps you would want to look for the Scott Cohen article and see if he did indeed say it. BTW, the above sentence comes from a webpage [8] that has more than one error on it and cannot be considered a reliable source. -- Polaris999 02:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes it clear, doesn't it? "Al expresado niño se le ha puesto el nombre de Ernesto" (no middle name). BTW, and just in case: a Wikipedia article cannot serve as the source/reference for another Wikipedia article. You can take info from one WP to another, or between articles in the same WP, but that information can only be as good as its original sources. Ideally, every fact that is not widely known and uncontroversial should be sourced. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do hope that it makes it clear and puts an end to the confusion once and for all. I am appending below a transcription to help people read the relevant section of the document more easily ... Polaris999 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent excerpts from his official Birth Certificate, shown above, read as follows:

el día quince de junio de mil novecientos veintiocho a las diez y siete horas
Ante mí, Jefe encargado del Registro del Estado Civil, se presentó Don Ernesto Rafael Guevara domiciliado en calle Entre Ríos cuatrocientos ochenta de veintiocho años de edad de estado casado de nacionalidad argentina de profesión hacendado vecino de esta ciudad declarando
Que en su domicilio el día catorce del corriente mes de junio a las tres y cinco horas nació un niño de color blanco que es hijo legítimo suyo y de su esposa Doña Celia de la Serna y Llosa, de veintidos años de edad, argentina.
Que es nieto por línea paterna de Don Roberto Guevara y de Doña Ana Lynch y, por línea materna, de Don Juan Martín de la Serna y de Doña Edelmira Llosa y que al expresado niño se le ha puesto el nombre de Ernesto
Todo lo cual presenciaron como testigos Don Raúl Lynch de veintidos años de edad de estado soltero, de nacionalidad argentina, de profesión Marino domiciliado en esta ciudad y Don José Beltran de treinta años de edad, de estado soltero, de nacionalidad brasileña de profesión chofer.

(Signatures of Ernesto Guevara Lynch, the two witnesses, and the Jefe del Registro del Estado Civil appear at the bottom of the document.)

NB: The above Birth Certificate is on display in the Che Guevara Museum in Alta Gracia, Argentina q.v.: Che Guevara Museum and Room of Museum where his Birth Certificate is displayed as is described on that Museum's website in the following words:

"Sala Nº3 En esta sala, la cual fuera su dormitorio, se pueden observar fotografías y documentos relacionados con los primeros años de vida de Ernesto, tales como el Acta de Nacimiento de Rosario, el 14 de junio de 1928, fotografías de su paso por Misiones, o documentación autenticada de las escuelas a las que asistió."

And here is one additional piece of confirmatory evidence — the name that the Cuban Consejo de Estado inscribed on his coffin (which rests in the Che Guevara Mausoleum in Santa Clara) is Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, viz:Coffin of Che Guevara

Polaris999 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that a short time ago a wikipedian entered a comment re CG's last words in an incorrect location here on the Talk page, so I am creating this as a new topic and will transfer his comment into it. Polaris999 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEYYYYYYY those arent che guevara´s final words!! NO WAYY!his last words in Spanish were "dejeme ponerme de pie!, y por favor sostenga la pistola fuertemente!.... usted esta por matar a un hombre!" that in Enlgish would be: "let me stand up... please hold the gun firmly... you are about to kill a man!". Anyone who has read about Che Guevara knows this... i hope it will be changed.... thanx felix

Your version sounds highly credible to me but please provide a source that meets Wikipedia standards as explained in WP:V and then make the change accompanied by the required source note and citation in the "References" section. Perhaps you did not notice that the version included here has a source note showing that it is from the book by Jon Lee Anderson (page 739, if you wish to verify it). -- Polaris999 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Serenese y apunte bien! Va usted a matar un hombre!" (Calm down and aims well! you are going to kill a man ..) According to la Higuera teacher. http://www.flickr.com/photos/frederico_mendes/14874024/in/set-279653/ Ericd 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the exact words may never be known, though all transcriptions seem to include something to the effect of "you are about to kill a man." But it isn't like there was a tape recorder running or a number of impartial witnesses. If there are significant citable variations, we should probably mention them in a footnote. - Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jmabel. I have been at work researching this. There is a significant preponderance of evidence in favor of the "Serénese y apunte bien! Usted va a matar un hombre!" version. I want to check a few more sources, but if these concur I think that we can make the change. Also, it does appear that, upon realizing that he was about to be executed, Guevara had struggled to his feet with the comment, "I want to be standing for this." Those, however, were not exactly his last words. -- Polaris999 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At 17:27, 9 July 2006, User:Sniggity inserted the following two sentences into the "Capture and Execution" sub-section:

According to a program on the The History Channel, Félix Rodríguez briefly spoke with Che on the evening prior to his execution and informed Che that he was to be executed. After being told, there are reports from Rodriguez and a guard that Che turned white as a ghost and could barely speak a word.

There are some problems with this text. First, it is not properly referenced as per the WP:CITE criteria. When adding information to this featured article, please provide a source that meets Wikipedia standards as established in WP:V and then create:

• (1) the required source note, and
• (2) the corresponding citation in the "References" section.

Second, one point all sources seem to be in agreement about concerning Guevara's final hours is the fact that Félix Rodríguez arrived in La Higuera aboard a helicopter with Colonel Zenteno early on the morning of 09 October. There is no record of his having been in La Higuera and spoken with Guevara the evening before (see, for example, Taibo, Paco Ignacio II. Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che, page 701). Guevara was executed at approximately 1:10 pm on 09 October, so he was not alive the evening of 09 October to be speaking with anyone. Therefore, in order for the sentence you have inserted to be correct (assuming that you heard it clearly) either Rodríguez has changed his story after all these years, or the History Channel misrepresented what he said. It is important to document which case applies if this sentence is going to be added to the article. Thank you -- Polaris999 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my disappointment, no one has taken up the single most important issue for this article. I will repeat:

We need documentation on the statement attributed in this article to Guevara that had the nuclear missiles of the Cuban Missile Crisis been under Cuban rather than Soviet control, they (presumably meaning he and Castro) would have fired them against major US cities. No other aspect of this man's life is as important. If it is accurate, and he seriously favored the direct murder of millions in an act that would certainly have triggered all-out nuclear holocaust and the death of billions and a collapse of civilization, it is safe to say that history will eventually see him for what he must have been: a dangerous, malevolent lunatic. If it is not accurate, the debate will go on... I will be trying to ferret out sources on this, but my time and energy is severely limited due to illness. I urge others to find reliable references and link to or quote from them on this Talk page so we can craft a definitive paragraph on this point for the article.

Sorry for the repetition, but all these other issues are tiny compared to this. JDG 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what kind of documentation are you seeking? (since this statement is already sourced in the article) -- Polaris999 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, we should have a third party verification of the Daily Worker quote. Then some background for the comment and the leading theories on what he really meant (I'm sure there are a few). JDG 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps not familiar with the concept of the "beautiful death"? Maybe you will find the following to be of interest:

It is now known that Fidel Castro and his comrade Che Guevara were arguing in favor of the Russians using the missiles against the United States. They were ready for their martyrdom and the martyrdom of Cuba. But Anastas Mikoyan, in Cuba participating in the crisis on behalf of the Soviet Union, was opposed to any such "beautiful death." Castro, Khrushchev and Kennedy

Other sources include the now de-classified papers of Mikoyan himself, the article by James G. Blight and David A. Welch, Risking The Destruction of Nations: Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis for New and Aspiring Nuclear States, Security Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer 1995), pp. 811-850, and the books:

• Carla Anne Robbins, The Cuban Threat (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983)
• Yuri Pavlov, Soviet-Cuban Alliance: 1959-1991 (Miami: University of Miami Iberian Studies Institute; 2nd edition, February 1996) (Pavlov was the Director of Latin America in the USSR Foreign Ministry at the time of the Missile Crisis.)
• James G. Blight and David A. Welch. Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993).
• Laurence Chang and Peter Kornbluh, eds. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 (New York, W.W. Norton,1998; revised edition, 200?).
• A.I. Gribkov, editor.On the Brink of the Nuclear Abyss (Moscow: Gregory Page, 1993)

Fidel Castro's 26 October 1962 letter to Khruschev is of particular importance because in it he calls on the Soviet leadership to launch a first-strike nuclear war against the USA if Cuba were invaded. Various Kremlin insiders have reported that it was after reading this letter that a shaken Khruschev decided upon the immediate withdrawal of the nuclear missiles from Cuba. (Probably it is no coincidence that the day after sending this letter to Khruschev, Castro ordered the shooting down of a U-2 plane that was flying over Cuba -- an act which he probably expected would precipitate a U.S. attack on Cuba; indeed, such a response was called for by Kennedy's military advisors, but he chose to ignore their counsel.)

Lest there be any doubt about Fidel Castro's intentions in this regard, the following is an excerpt from his statement to the 1992 conference concerning the Missile Crisis which he made in response to a query from Robert McNamara:

Now, we started from the assumption that if there was an invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt. We were certain of that ... we would be forced to pay the price, that we would disappear.... Would I have been ready to use nuclear weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons.… The Cuban Missile Crisis by Robert McNamara

Finally, here is a quote from Che in his essay Táctica y Estrategia de la Revolución Latinoamericana which Cuba did not publish until after his death (specifically, on 6 October 1968 in the armed forces' magazine "Verde Olivo", page 16.):

El peligro mayor que entraña la Revolución cubana está en su ejemplo, en su divulgación revolucionaria, en que el Gobierno ha podido elevar el temple de este pueblo, dirigido por un líder de alcance mundial, a alturas pocas veces vistas en la historia. Es el ejemplo escalofriante de un pueblo que está dispuesto a inmolarse atómicamente para que sus cenizas sirvan de cimiento a las sociedades nuevas y que, cuando se hace, sin consultarlo, un pacto por el cual se retiran los cohetes atómicos, no suspira de alivio, no da gracias por la tregua; salta a la palestra para dar su voz propia y única; su posición combatiente, propia y única, y más lejos, su decisión de lucha, aun cuando fuera solo, contra todos los peligros y contra la mismísima amenaza atómica del imperialismo yanqui.

Perhaps after consulting these and other relevant works you, or some other wikipedian, will decide to expand the paragraph in question. (Should you wish to read my thoughts on the subject, please see Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 4:Che - a humanitarian?.) -- Polaris999 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this is an overwhelmingly notable issue. I would have thought most politicians from any country would state, if asked, that they would fire nuclear missiles to defend their country from invasion. That's exactly what they are produced for. Surely the act of lunacy would have been the initial invasion of a country in posession of nuclear missiles. Canderra 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be nice to track down the particular citation in the Daily Worker. Right now, the quote trails off oddly in the footnote "…clearly a man of great intelligence though I thought he was crackers from the way he went on about the." I believe only James Joyce is allowed to end a sentence with "the". - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jmabel, for pointing out that the final word had been cut off the end of that sentence. Looking back over the article's history, I discovered that this act of vandalism had occurred yesterday, i.e. at 04:35, 26 July 2006, perpetrated by User:68.88.234.65. I'm very glad that your sharp eyes caught it, and I have now restored the missing word which was "missiles". -- Polaris999 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris asked me to give my impression of recent changes to the article. I don't have the focus to really give this right now, but one thing leaps out: the lead section has become much longer than is normal for a biography, even of a major figure with a complicated life. For examples of other featured biographies of political figures, consider Attila the Hun, Claudius Joan of Arc, (all much shorter); Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu (somewhat shorter); Mahatma Ghandi is the only other one I see that is about this long. I'm sure that pretty much everything there is echoed below; I'm almost certain it could be said more succinctly in the lead, and perhaps some of it omitted from the lead, but I don't have the energy to take it on right now. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved User:Kwertii's re-write of the lead section over here to the Talk page so that other editors can comment on it and a consensus can be reached as to whether it should replace the existing lead section which has been part of the Che Guevara article since shortly before it was promoted to FA status. According to Wikipedia:The perfect article, "A perfect Wikipedia article ... starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail."

Please enter your comments about the proposed changes below the text. Thank you. -- Polaris999 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Kwertii:

As for the length, I believe that a good introduction should catch all the highlights of a major figure's life; a biography-in-a-nutshell that will suggest useful sections within the body of the article that one can consult for further information on a topic of particular interest to the reader, and this is hardly one of only a few articles on Wikipedia that adopts that style. I like intros in the style of Mahatma Ghandi, George Washington, and Napoleon much better than the terse style of Claudius or Vladimir Lenin. The latter read more like a biographical dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article. They tell the reader very little that they did not already know before consulting the article. That's a good first paragraph for an introductory section in an article; it is not so good as the entire introduction. A reader interested in a figure generally at e.g. Vladimir Lenin is forced to spend a long time churning through the entire detailed article body just to know the high points of the figure's life. The casual reader, in all likelihood, is not actually be interested in knowing what high school the figure went to or exactly what years they spent in a certain job, and a good intro should not require them to wade through that sort of thing just to learn the broad outlines of their life: not merely what they did in life in condensed form, but also the general outlines of why and how. An intro should give the casual reader something more than merely "Marxist revolutionary known for his part in the Cuban Revolution after travelling on a motorcycle across South America while he was at university and seeing poor people; has a famous photograph."

As for the reversion, there is no policy requiring one to discuss major edits on Talk before implementing them; nor is there any standard practice of consulting previous authors before editing "their" pages; nor are Featured Articles treated any differently than any other articles in terms of editing policy. Quite the contrary, actually (e.g. Wikipedia:Editing policy; Wikipedia:Ownership of articles; Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages, , among others.) If there is something factually inaccurate or POV in what I wrote, by all means discuss it here and/or change it. As far as I can tell, there is nothing factually or POVly wrong with my edits (that I am aware of), and I see no legitimate grounds for your reversion, Polaris999. Simply making a large edit without letting other editors comment on it first is not generally considered grounds for reversion; in fact, this flies in the face of standard practice on Wikipedia. I am therefore restoring my edit. Kwertii 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt about the lead section from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies):

An excerpt about the lead section from Wikipedia:Featured article advice:

The two preceding excerpts were posted into this discussion topic by Polaris999 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

Comments by User:Polaris999:

The following are the explanations of changes I have made to the lead section written by User:Kwertii as it appears in the article. He restored his version of the lead section into the article shortly after I had posted it here for discussion because, as he explains in his comment above, he does not consider it necessary to discuss changes or reach consensus about them. (To see the actual changes I made, please refer to the article's History page.) The changes I made have not addressed the matter of the length of the lead section since I only removed one sentence, i.e. the last sentence of the first paragraph of his re-write of said section, which I removed because (as noted below) that sentence repeated information contained in the 6th paragraph of the same section.

• (correction: the "u" in Raul is accented)
  
• (removing sentence that repeats what is said in the (now) 6th paragraph of this section; this point doesn't need to be made twice in this section)
  
• (he travelled directly from Guatemala to Mexico which are neighboring countries)
  
• (correcting naming errors: nickname or first name should not be used to refer to the subject of the biography -- see WP:Manual of Style (biographies) #Subsequent uses of names)
  
• (naming error -- Guzmán is the matronymic of this individual, his surname is Arbenz)
  
• (removing "Che" from first appearance of name: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) Pseudonyms, stage names and common names)
  
• (Military rank is not supposed to be included in the lead sentence. Look at Eisenhower, Rommel, etc.)
• (removed title "Dr." -- use of academic titles in lead paragraph and elsewhere is deprecated: pls see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles)
  

-- Polaris999

These changes seem perfectly reasonable to me. Kwertii 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming at this from the persective of someone who knows little about the subject, I was reading to learn and noticed a few things. In the "Guatemala" section, a woman "Hilda Gadea" is introduced as Che's main political contact. The next reference is to Che selling her jewelry, it isn't until later in the "Cuba" section that they are noted as being in a relationship. The sentence directly after the jewelry selling is "Then, on May 15, 1954, a shipment of high-quality Skoda infantry and light artillery weapons sent from Communist Czechoslovakia for the Arbenz Government arrived in Puerto Barrios aboard the Swedish ship Alfhem.", but there is no clear reference as to why this is particulary important to the article, and the paragraph goes on talking about tonnage of this shipment and Che going to get a new Visa. I can kind of connect the dots, but it seems to me a bit confusing the way it is written.--Trees4est 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Guatemala" section needs cleanup. The editor who "created" it doesn't seem to be active on this article any more, so I guess that someone else needs to undertake the task. Volunteers? -- Polaris999 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris, do I take it from that remark that you are not volunteering? On the whole, I've been impressed with your consistently knowledgable and even-handed treatment of this controversial figure. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, thank you very much for your words of encouragement, but I was thinking it would be good if someone else were to "take a turn". Among other things, I find it confusing that (as you remark below in the topic "Size again") many readers/editors have been complaining that the article is too long, but then when someone more than doubles the length of the lead section by merely repeating information that is already included elsewhere in the article, neither these people, nor anyone else, seems to object. I do not know how to interpret this seeming contradiction and until (unless) I understand it, I do not think that I will be doing much work on this article. -- Polaris999 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read in this talk page a notice regarding the size of the article (80KB at the time). The article is now 96KB, that's almost THREE times the recommended article size. My head hurts from reading. --Iafrate 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got my facts wrong.. it's "only" 94KB. I apologize. --Iafrate 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than shortening the introduction (which seems to be an unpopular proposal), it's really hard to imagine what to cut. This has become (with the inevitable limitiation of successfully "digesting" new contributions) a really good piece on Guevara. Iafrate, any concrete suggestions for trimming? - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit. Just mentioning it's size problems, and not proposing solutions to shorten the article without lowering the quality, was too easy.... shame on me... but I still think the article is too long, making it less readable. If work and wife allows me, I'll get back on saturday or sunday with a list of proposed actions for shortening, for all here to discuss. Cheers. --Iafrate 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of anyone who may be interested, the "readable prose" in this article is only 64 KB per a count I did at 04:25, 18 August 2006. According to Wikipedia:Article size, For stylistic purposes, only the main body of prose[1] (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose.

[1]Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: external links, further reading, references, footnotes, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting.

Source: Wikipedia:Article size

Polaris999 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the size of the article is fine. Though I do prefer the earlier more Concise introduction.--Zleitzen 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]