"The CIA wanted to keep him alive for interrogation, but he was executed by the Bolivian army" was recently changed by User:Db pr, who has no other contributions to Wikipedia, to say, "And he was later killed by a bolivian soldier under CIA orders." No comment was made, no citation was provided, and I believe the change is factually wrong. I am reverting, but will happily yield if there is solid citation to back it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.)

But where is the evidence to support the assertion that the CIA "wanted to keep him alive for interrogation"?--Garsanllean 11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new lead photo added by User:SecretAgentMan00 has no information at all about provenance. I have no idea what the rights situation on it is. I also have no idea why it is to be preferred to the photo it replaced. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's been replaced -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The CIA is a bunch of philistines and should not have murdered or ordered the murder of a legendry superfighter

Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.

I am not sure if this characterization reflects the contents of the article: "Pot-smokin' hippie and pseudo-intellectual/guerrilla extraordinaire"

Where are the hippie references, and why "pseudo-" before the intellectual ?

- left, unsigned by User:Sgouris, who has no other edits.

Interesting that your comment shows up a full day after this brief vandalism was fixed. Having fun? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

the version i edited said something about and "ill, humiliated" che, that doesnt align with his personality, i edited for a more NPOV approach to the real fact that it is unknown the REAL reason for Che's departure who was sad about the situation there but never mentioned being humliated or something like that, i hope peopl see my changes as something positive for the NPOV of the whole article --Gotten 21:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His recently released diaries are quite clear why he left the Congo. TDC 22:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Still "humiliated" is not the right word, and i dont see the reason to delete "An intellectual and a thinker, Che believed in putting his theories into action." i ask you to discuss this with facts, and lets reach a concesus about how to put more neutrally Che Guevara's departure from Congo... --Gotten 23:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why was the portion about his term at the prison removed? (unsigned, 24 Dec 2004)

User:Centralman seems determined to add to the article this factoid that "The current Hong Kong Legislative Council member, Leung Kwok-Hung is an avid fan of Che Guevara." I have reverted him once, and would welcome a revert by someone else. I cannot readily imagine why that is encyclopedic, and even if true and for some reason notable (for example, if he is attempting to promote policies in Hong Kong modeled insome way on Latin American Marxist revolutionary traditions), it would seem to me to belong in an article on Leung Kwok-Hung, not one on Che Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Under the Cuba section this text can be found: "He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32 caliber (7.65 mm, likely a Soviet-made Makarov) pistol."

Either it was a .32/7.65mm pistol or a Makarov. The Makarov uses the 9x18mm Makarov cartridge. Since I really can't say which is right, or what the weapon in question really was, I didn't want to edit the entry. (I've also just registered, although I have been using Wikipedia for a while. Besides, this is really nitpicking...)

Offhand, I'd guess the Makarov wasn't all too available at the time. Perhaps this was a Soviet Tokarev TT pistol (this used the same 7.62mm ammunition as the PPSh)? --Karl Gunnarsson 01:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid ! .32/7,65mm is a very common caliber and I believe that at that time Castro had no direct support from the USSR. Ericd 11:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cut from article:

Some have speculated however, that the hero worship of Che is precisely something he wouldn't have wanted - the T-shirts bearing his image have become fashion statements and are sometimes very expensive. The ideals that Che had fought are oftentimes opposite of today's crass consumerism indulged by young people.

True enough that some have speculated this, but POV speculation has no place in the article. If you can cite someone reasonably authoritative on what Che would and wouldn't have wanted, fine, but blind speculation? No. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've been reverting anonymously added hatchet-job links. The following were recently added by a named contributor (albeit one with one edit outside of this article), User:US-Patriot, so I figured I'd bring them here for discussion instead.

• Against All Hope: A Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulag, by Armando Valladares, Publisher: Encounter Books; Reprint edition (April 1, 2001), ISBN: 1893554198.
  • certainly a valid thing to refer to and reputed to be a respectable (if polemical) book (I haven't read it), but what is the relevance to Guevara in particular? I can certainly see linking this in the Cuba article, but why should it be in this one? On this one, I'm open to a discussion of its relevance
• Che Guevara by Humberto Fontova and The Real Che (same author)
  • These seem to me like little more than spews of hatred against Guevara. I don't think they are appropriate links. Please understand, it's not like I want to turn this article into a hagiography. The Real Che by Anthony Daniels is certainly not friendly to Guevara, and I think it belongs here. But I don't think a biographical article in Wikipedia should link to things like the Fontova material. I wouldn't consider it appropriate to link to a comparable piece from the article about Adloph Hitler.
    I'm not doing the first reversion this time, I've done enough of those lately, but I urge someone else to. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Do I take it from the lack of comment, and lack of removal of this material that mine is the minority opinion here? If so, I'm surprised. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

There are several edits currently present in this entry (thongs on their head, his "gay" disappearance) that I have been unable to revert because the history page is returning a server error. - M

fixed Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

--- The user with the nick "che and marihuana" removed the link to the forum "ernesto-guevara.com", i think for a neutral POV you have to show all POVs and let people decide, hiddin this forum isnt helping to a more NPOV, so i reverted his change.... --Gotten 17:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that someone take time to evaluate the link and see if Che y Marijuana is correct that the forum in question is small and used mostly by neo-fascists. If it is, I can see no good reason to link it from this article. Showing multiple POVs certainly does not mean linking to neo-fascist forums from topics unrelated to fascism. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to do some searches, but I'm providing a few quotes here. and I don't like that my name is being used as an argument for reverting my change.

Here's a comment by one of their former moderators, who I struggled hard to get removed for his Neo-Nazism, and never succeeded. I believe he was removed for flaming. That's worse than Nazism, right?

[3]

It is true that the holocaust happened in the sense that many Jews were imprisoned, but not in the sense that they were gassed or even executed. According to Nazi archives they were going to be resettled.

Although back then you also have to consider that open debate about the holocaust was very limited so as not to hurt the Jews' feelings, because you know, Jews never lie

Just like after 9/11, today, there is limited talk about what really happened on 9/11, there was limited talk about the holocaust (even today anyone who dares to challenge this hollowcaust gets thrown in jail or killed).

Here's one by a CURRENT moderator:

[4]

Yes, we all know the holocaust happened, just like we all knew that the Earth was flat. Anyone who disagreed with that fact was a heretic and today anyone who remotely disagrees with the fact that 6 million Jews were killed is an "anti-semite." (including Jews like Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chompsky and Israel Shamir).

That is how this whole situation comes out as for any truly objective person, like it or not. What is wrong with allowing somebody to express their opinion on this topic, regardless of what you think? Is this not a "free society"? Can you not stamp out "anti-semitism (sic)" and "holocaust denial(sic)" by arguing against their points instead of accepting the "wall" view and going on which hunts against anyone who disagrees? Revisionism is historical analysis that questions the official view (like the well-documented fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist, which you, of course, are outraged at because that's not what the history teacher told you), nothing more.

And yes, the ARA are pro-Zionist and I already knew this. I used to want to get involved with the LA chapter and did a lot of research on them. Even though I bought into the "holocaust" theory back then I still thought they stressed it too fanatically. Then, I joined one of their mailing lists and they very often posted articles by the ADL and the Nizkor Project. Even if you buy in to the "holocaust" myth, how does that justify supporting an actively pro-Zionist organization like the ARA? Its OK to support one "chosen people" on account of opposing another "chosen people"? If that is the case, you are a hypocrite

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point. This is just the holocaust debate, I could get into the "national bolshevik party" debate, and the homophobia debate, with quotes from their moderators, if you want.--Che y Marijuana 20:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, given that these are moderators, that sounds pretty conclusive to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:27, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see this was recently anonymously changed from Rosario (I know where that is, it's a city, it's where I thought he was from) to Lancia. No citation (or even edit summary) was given. Does anyone have a citation either way? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rosario is correct according to The Che Handbook ISBN 1-84072-502-8 and several other books I have.--Garsanllean 17:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A recent anon edit changed the number of Granma survivors from 12 to 16 without citation. Since the old number wasn't cited either, I have no idea which was correct, but I presume someone has a citation on this; could you please present it? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Granma arrived on 25th November 1956. According to The Che Handbook ISBN 1-84072-502-8 by the end of December "only 15 of the original 82 guerillas remained, the others being either dead, missing, or taken prisoner".--Garsanllean 17:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i've just been banned at ernesto-guevara.com for the comments I posted above about the site, I'd just like to make clear that comradeche.com is just a redirect to the same site.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:15, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you were indeed banned but not simply for the comments you posted above about the site but the fact that you're trying to stump the growth of ComradeChe.com by

1) Removing links to ComradeChe site from Wikipedia articles. 2) Making unfounded slanders such as the site is ran by "Fascists". I run the site and I'm a pupil of Marx, Engels and Lenin, however, you continue to lie. What will this achieve?

P.S. Where did I ever express "Fascist" views? --Tarasi 12:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have allowed your moderating team to be dominated by homophobic, sexist, racist supporters of Neo-Fascists such as the National Bolshevik party, and holocaust-deniers. I am also the second member to be banned specifically for discussing this at other sites and warning others about it. In other words, you are actively supporting this trend, going out of your way to ensure these people continue to dominate the discussion. I once considered you blissfully ignorant, but you are the only who can be held accountable for this sorry state of affairs, as you are the one who pays out of your own pocket for this site. Deal with this and fix the site, in the meantime it remains inappropriate for a small site of Neo-Fascists to be on the Che Guevara page.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I never claimed the entire moderating team were fascists, I said it was dominated by fascists. Here's partial list of those on the moderating team who I would consider, Neo-Fascists, open supporters of Neo-Fascists, or indirect appologists for Neo-Fascists.

Admins

• Sensitive, a third positionist who supports the NBP. Open supporter of Neo-Fascism
• Tarasai, who never posts except when there is trouble, and seems to operate on a definition of trouble that is limited to people opposing racism, sexism, homophobia. Hence, indirect appologist.

Moderators

• thursday night, a third positionist who supports the NBP. Open supporter of Neo-Fascism
• Red Skyscraper, supports the NBP, holocaust denial, the "rehabilitation" of gays and jews. Also considers "internationalism" to be an enemy. Open supporter of Neo-Fascism
• Berserk, who is a third positionist who has gone out of his way to bring NBP members to the site and considers Jews and "internationalism" to be the main enemy. Neo-Fascist
• Rice349, who began by taking a position like yours, ignoring the problem mainly, and soon became out and out an advocate of the same crap as the rest, all wrapped in a façade of scientific approach. Opposes homosexual liberation, women's liberation and anti-racism/anti-fascism to be diversions and unimportant, and advocates abandoning them. Indirect appologist for Neo-Fascism
• Iron Feliks, considers Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists to be a model to be studied, Fascism to be more progressive than Capitalism, the NBP to be an ally against "capitalists and trots", Jews to be a threat and a ruling class of their own, gays to be an example of "bourgeois decadance", women who stand up for themselves and demand fair treatment to be immoral, etc... Open supporter of Neo-Fascism who borders on just being a plain Neo-Fascist

so there you go-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will consider the points you raised. However, in the mean time, please cease your attempts to stump the growth of my site. The fact remains is, I don't nearly have enough time to maintain the forums in a manner I'd like to, most of the admins and moderators were democratically elected by the forum populace. I'm honestly too busy with real political work to get involved in petty internet squabbles and I cannot spend 12 hours a day online in an attempt to stop you from editing links from these pages. Do you see me editing out links to Che-Lives on the grounds that it is infested with drug users and anarchists? So what is your problem? Is your life honestly confined to fighting what you see as Fascism on the internet?

I tolerated you for months and months and listening to your critisms, yet you continue to slander both me and my site in public, you've never once raised these issues with me in private.

I demodded Iron Feliks last week and gave him a warning to cease his impersenation of Jews, I also debated him on Oswald Mosley to which he stopped replying. Honestly, what do you want? You've never taken action against members of your site who have spammed my site in the past, 100% of your posts tend to be centered on "banning the Fascists", why do you expect me to ban almost all of the orginal founders and most active contributors?

Stop removing the links from Wikipedia, what are you attempting to achieve by doing this? --Tarasi 21:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is only marginally relevant to Wikipedia, except insofar as it bears on whether or not we should link to the site in question. We want to link from Wikipedia to sites that are of a quality comparable to our own; Wikipedia is not a link farm. Tarasi, the promotion of your site is not one of Wikipedia's goals, and given that you say in almost so many words that the reason you want a link here is to promote your site, that is an argument against linking to it. If Che y Marijuana is correct that your site includes an lot of uninformed neo-fascist contributors, and that it is relatively short on solid content, that is highly relevant to Wikipedia, and if it's inconvenient for you, that's not really Wikipedia's affair. Also, frankly, the efforts a few months back to "kidnap" an existing link and redirect it to your site tend to bias me strongly against the site, and I doubt that I'm alone in that. The adoption of new names and then sneaking it back in without discussion doesn't exactly make a positive impression, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel covers it pretty well. As for discussing this with you, I have, and you never seemed very interested in doing anything about it. If you'd like to discuss this further, wikipedia is not the best place. You know where I am, just drop me a line. In the meantime, I will abstain from reverting you for the time being. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

umm... I said I would stop reverting while discussion was happening... are you going to discuss this or did you just say that so that we would stop removing the as-of-now inappropriate link?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I said I would wait. It's been 13 days now, and no discussion has occurred, so my original objection to this link remains and I'm removing it again.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 11:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cut from article:

for his outspoken opposition to all forms of imperialism and neocolonialism and ...

Communists generally have opposed only "Western" imperialism or colonialism, while overlooking or even endorsing Soviet imperialism and colonialism (and/or that of other Communist forces). The gist is that Marxism-Leninism is not opposed to these things per se, but only insomuch as they represent obstacles to a Communist victory. Recall that Communist morality is not absolute, but measures all things good and bad in terms of how well it "advances communism".

Communists like to say they are against various Western abuses, but they say this chiefly to condemn the West - rather than out of a belief that these things are bad in and of themselves.

I'm guessing that Che only opposed Western imperialism, but if there's any record that he opposed Soviet or Cuban imperialism as well (as in Angola) that would make for a very interesting article! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:00, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! Cuban imperialism in angola... right... Che did indeed oppose soviet imperialism, hence the breakdown of his relationship with moscow near the end.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cuban intervention in Angola, certainly. They had several thousand troops there (tens of thousands?), essentially serving as a Soviet proxy. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Guevara seemed all too willing to prostitue Cuba out to the Soviets, ala nuclear weapons, when it was convient for him to do so. TDC 20:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Castro made the choice to align Cuba with USSR not Guevara. While Guevara was a convicted marxist and an idealist it's not certain than Castro was once really believed in marxism. Castro was a pragmatic, the Cuban crisis killed the dream of real idependance for Cuba and Castro choosed USSR against the USA. Guevara never fully understood it and criticized USSR in several occasions. At the end of his life Guevara was ideologically something else than a marxist-leninist as he intended to pursue the Revolution at World scale (a Trotskyist idea) that's why it was better for Castro and the USSR to send Guevara elsewhere. Ericd 21:03, 8 May 2005 (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)

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]

While it makes perfect sense to include links that are intellectually critical of Guevara, the articles by one Humberto Fontova that are currently in the Links section of this page are anything but that. I especially point to the following links:

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y04/feb04/24e6.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova44.html

http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html

These are not impartial criticism of Guevara making a well-thought out analysis on him, but rather hissy fits regarding Che Guevara. I consider these links inappropriate to have on a site that is supposed to be informational for the following reasons:

• The first article accuses Cuba, and Fidel Castro and Che Guevara in particular, of crimes worse than Nazi Germany.
• It also makes unfounded accusations of psychological torture on prisoners by the hands of Guevara.
• It also refers to Guevara as a coward.
• It makes a silly criticism about Che's opinions and writings supposedly being "boring".
• Finally, Che is being called "monumentally vain and epically stupid. He was shallow, boorish, cruel and cowardly. He was full of himself, a consummate fraud and an intellectual vacuum. He was intoxicated with a few vapid slogans, spoke in clichés and was a glutton for publicity." Surely these petty insults do not have to be linked to by a page like Wikipedia?
• The second article is a hissy fit about some celebrity wearing a shirt in the image of Guevara at the Oscars. It only serves to make fun of this celebrity and complain more about Guevara.
• It also features a horror story by one Pierre San Martin, in which Guevara supposedly blew the head off a 12-year-old and fired away on protesting prisoners in San Martin's cell. As a Google search for "Pierre San Martin" reveals nothing but Fontova's same petty rant or a translation of it in other languages, it is quite likely that this man has never existed.
• It once again features the same accusation of cowardice that has been seen before.
• To top it all off, Mr Fontova has this to say about Guevara in closing: "This swinish and murdering coward, this child-killer, was the toast of the Oscars."
• The page also features a link to an index of more works by Fontova, with about the same intellectual value as the ones we're discussing here.
• The third link has about the same features as the other two. Whining about a celebrity carrying the image of Che? Check. Accusation of cowardice? Check. Accusation of cruelty to POWs? Check. Accusations of military incompetence? Check. Accusation of mass murder? Check. Another accusation of cowardice? Check.

While they are a great comic relief compared to all the serious articles on Che, their hilarity does not justify them being linked to by an informative site like Wikipedia. I'm removing them, if anybody seriously wants them back, we can always discuss it here, the links are posted above for review.

--Eyeflash 17:45, 14 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I said roughly this above at #Recently added links, etc.. At the time no one chimed in, so I didn't remove unilaterally. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

While it's not exactly the most relevant piece of info in the article, I added the United States to the list of countries of origin of tourists to Che's grave...while I would bet hundreds have been there, a close friend of mine has been there at the very least :) I couldn't decide where to add the United States to the list. I didn't want to put it first or last for emphasis since that seems US-centric, but at the same time I don't think it shouldn't be lost in the middle since it involves breaking the law for an American citizen (AFAIK it's not illegal for the citizens of any of the other countries listed), which I think makes it more interesting that people make an effort to do it.

So (sheesh this is long) I did the logical thing and put them all in alphabetic order...hope that's cool with everyone. --Lance 1 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Yes, that is good. And for the record, Americans can visit Cuba legally if they have a travel license issued by the Treasury Department. Not easy to get, but there are ways. . .

while the article isn't bad, i don't think there's enough about criticisms of Che, which certainly do exist (as well as criticisms of the pop culture Che-shirts worn by a lot of younger people.) this doesn't mean we have to include rants like Fontova's, but there certainly are people that believe that Che was ideologically rigid (in usual Communist fashion) and that he was willing to support great violent means for "the Revolution" (ends justify the means -- also remember the call for "many Vietnams," though I think that might already be in there.) i'm sure there are plenty of Cuban-Americans who don't think too highly of him as well. he certainly is an icon, and admired by a lot of people, but we shouldn't downplay legitimate criticism. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

• I agree that more reasonable criticism from appropriate sources probably belongs here: Che is a controversial figure. The problem is that those who have been inclined to add criticism have mostly been inclined simply to add rants. In my experience, there's been a lot of this going around, especially with respect to right-wing criticism of figures on the left. It's not very interesting—and certainly not encyclopedic—to add that they are disliked by the Fontovas and Limbaughs of the world. -- Jmabel | Talk July 5, 2005 15:23 (UTC)
• The "quality" of this article is in severe doubt. Writing an article about Che without discussing his mass-murder and despotism is like writing an article about Hitler without mentioning that he murdered millions of people. That such can happen suggests to me a kind of leftist lunacy.

Che = Communism = Evil = Hitler. This is a great contribution to the article :

Many right-wing criticism of Guevara by Wikipedian is worth nothing because it's only POV. As for the "quality" of this article, let's quote the article :

"Guevara took responsibility for the execution of informers, insubordinates, deserters and spies in the revolutionary army. He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32(7.65mm) caliber pistol."

"In 1959, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500). Poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned at La Cabana, documented Guevara's particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners."

"Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Guevara was part of a Cuban delegation to Moscow in early 1962 with Raúl Castro where he endorsed the planned placement of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Guevara believed that the placement of Soviet missiles would protect Cuba from any direct military action against it from the United States. Jon Lee Anderson reports that after the crisis Guevara told Sam Russell, a British correspondent for the socialist newspaper Daily Worker, that if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them."

Do you have facts to add ? Ericd 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure if I understand the structure of this last post, but "POV" criticism is indeed necessary when dealing with a figure like Che, especially considering the vast majority of the pro-Che POV treats him like the Second Coming of Christ -- we need balance. like JM said, this does not mean we have to include anti-Castro rants like Fontova's. though, i suppose you might be right that we have enough stuff in already -- i need to check the article more closely. J. Parker Stone 03:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding facts to add, I suggest that the numerous documented facts of Guevara's murders, torture, and cruel behaviour should be added. See these articles:

http://tinyurl.com/b7f5m http://frontpagemag.org/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12467 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1258340,00.html http://bureaucrash.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=40

I think that in an article several pages long on a man who murdered hundreds of people, his crimes against humanity deserve more mention. Quoting the idiot nutcase philosopher who called Guevara, "the most complete human being of our age", is absurd and unworthy of mention, and I don't think it's neutral. -- Dh003i

Concerning the links: Two of the articles are ideological rants - frontpagemag and bureaucrash are not very classy publications (next to the frontpage article is an add for a T-shirt: I neutered my cat, now he is a liberal ) and ideologically pretty far to the right (especially in a non-US context, and Wikipedia is international) The observer article is very classy British journalism, but deals almost exlusively with the iconofication of Che's image, I think there is quite a bit of that already in the article, but it'd definitely merit a link. The New Republic article (the tinyurl link) seems to be a decent peace of journalism, though one-sided not polemic an contains quite a bit of careful journalistic work. However, the main accusations against Che are his role in La Cabana, his personal execution of alleged informers and his sympathy for first Moscow/Stalin, later Mao. All of those are, as Ericd demonstrated, already in the article.

frontpagemag (have no clue about the other one) is certainly neoconservative, which may mean "far-right" to mainland Europe and elsewhere, but there seems to be somewhat of a double standard on this site with regards to staunch right and staunch left POV. just a general comment that if we're not gonna include ideologically-laced rants we should be consistent. anyhow, with that aside...

The only thing in the New Republic article that I think is really worth adding to the article, is Che's almost erotic fascination with violence, such as “Here in the Cuban jungle, alive and bloodthirsty.” and more. Let me also say, if you want other people to take you seriously and argue fairly with your point, it might not be such a good idea to dimiss a nobel-prize winner (though not acceptor ;-) and widely influential philosopher as a "idiot nutcase". The quote, that should be included in the article for its famousness alone, demonstrates well the type of quasi-religious reverence that Che received and continues to receive from some of his admirers. bastel 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i essentially agree with this post. che worshippers may like his end goals (just like certain leftists have tended to sympathize with extreme violence done in the name of social justice,) but the means he advocated -- and his political intolerance -- should be noted.

oh, and about that philosopher. i tend to think of certain intellectuals as intellectual idiots. for this guy specifically though, don't know enough about him to say that. J. Parker Stone 04:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand insistance to add facts that are already in the article. I just want to add that the execution of Eutimio Guerra was not a sign of "political intolerance", there's no doubt that the guy was a traitor. Ericd 21:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...dude, i wasn't citing that specifically. J. Parker Stone 07:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need three separate (recently added) passages to the effect that Fidel Castro may have distrusted and exploited Che? Seems to me like this can far better go one place in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Che-mart" is a moderately amusing humor site, but I don't think it merits a link.

The recently added sentence that begins, "The most widely agreed upon account is that Guevara received multiple shots to the legs...": On what basis is this described as "most widely agreed upon"? Indeed, is there any citation at all? It seems to me that all we have are the conflicting accounts of the few people present, and that anything else is speculation. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"When the police killed him for leading a failed peasant revolt, Ché was wearing a gold watch."

The Basque People's page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_people) states Guevara was of Basque ancestry: "Several of Argentina's Presidents have been of Basque descent, including Irigoyen, Aramburu and Urquiza, not to mention other figures, notably Che Guevara."

Should this be included in the oppening bio? Currently, it only states that he was of Spanish and Irish decent.

• Does anyone have any documentation of Basque descent? In my experience, the pages devoted to ethnic groups have a tendency to be written mostly by people of the ethnic group in question, and they often make claims that are, to put it nicely, a bit of a stretch. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are apparently many people of Basque ancestry in Argentina, so the claim is possible, but that isn't proof.

I found the following information in Flame magazine. (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/che_guevara_irish_roots.htm) Is this worth including?

"As for the surname Guevara, it is believed to be of Basque origin, and is derived from the place name Guevara which is located in the Basque province of Alava. According to etymologists, the place name Guevara is derived from the Basque word "ebar" which means "fern or bracken". The earliest record of the surname is that of a donation made to the Order of Calatrava by Vela Ladron de Guevara in 1288. He was a descendant of Count Ladron Velez de Guevara, Senor of the House of Guevara, who described himself as a "Prince of the people of Navarre". (anon 10 Aug 2005)

Certainly seems plausible, I wish they had given their source more clearly than "believed to be". Does anyone know this magazine well enough to know if it is a generally reliable source in matters of fact? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What about "I am Che Guevara and I have failed."? Even if it's not true (I wouldn't know about that), this quote is so famous that it should at least be mentioned somewhere. Shinobu 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a citation for this claim? With a decent citation, it belongs in the article. Without one, it doesn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The quote is famous from a Times lead.

There are serious doubts about whether he actually said this when he died though:

At one point early in the confusions General Ovando, Chief of Bolivian Armed Forces, declared that he had died in battle, and that just before he dying he had declared: "I am Che Guevara and I have failed.";these are sometimes accepted as his last words, though subsequent reports have generally discredited that initial account.

(from Wikiquote)

Someone who reads this article is likely to know said Times lead. Not finding any info on it, but merely stating other (probably more probable) last words, may leave a reader with some questions.

As for a citation of this quote(?)'s famousness, it's been in the Times, one of the most well-known articles from one of the most well-known newspapers. It's still quoted in style guides. Shinobu 06:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know the quote. Times of London, New York Times...? Date? Actual citation?-- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Times, I think. Probably an issue not too long after his death. I have found the quote on the web (and also translated in various other languages), but the actual article predates 1985 and as such is not available on line. The lead went something like this:

"I am Che Guevara and I have failed" were the last words the Cuban guerilla leader uttered to Bolivian soldiers before he died of his injuries early yesterday morning. ...

This is not the actual article text, but maybe it's a help in locating it. Shinobu 06:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

checking the history of the article and this talk page, the underlying goal is clear: prevent all blunt criticism of the subject. any attempt to add external criticism is nitpicked out the door as "POV", and brief, comparatively benign statements in the article are cited here as though they represent real criticism. they do not.

it is artifice to manufacture, when convenient, a requirement that cited external views be NPOV. the praise certainly isn't. wikipedia must be NPOV, but external, sourced statements in an article needn't. this article is muted yet ill-disguised fan blush, and it violates wikipedia policy on neutrality. there are many clear POV aspects in the article even before discussing exclusions. i would edit them, but the history suggests it would be futile without laying the groundwork here first. perhaps the best summary example, from the end of the article:

"Some believe that Guevara, called 'the most complete human being of our age' by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, will one day be considered as important an activist and thinker as Simón Bolívar, leader of the South American independence movement and hero to subsequent generations of nationalists throughout Latin America. Others believe that he was a hero of the Cuban revolution who was skillfully manipulated by Fidel Castro in order to inspire the masses, all the while being moved into positions where he would represent little or no danger to Fidel himself."

that is a clam bake. nowhere exists anything resembling the significant-minority view of those who assert, pointing to documentation at least as worthy as what underlies the gushing of the article, that guevara was a murderer. the worst in the summation is that he was still a hero, though one who was manipulated and not given his proper place in castro's empire. humberto fontova's view, for example, is not to be included, even in links? on what grounds — that he lived in cuba, has interviewed subjects who claim that guevara was nefarious, and wrote Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant? because he says This swinish and murdering coward, this child-killer...?

stated on this page: The problem is that those who have been inclined to add criticism have mostly been inclined simply to add rants. In my experience, there's been a lot of this going around, especially with respect to right-wing criticism of figures on the left. It's not very interesting—and certainly not encyclopedic—to add that they are disliked by the Fontovas and Limbaughs of the world.

anybody harshly critical of guevara is pre-defined as an irrational, extremist lout, and therefore ineligible for inclusion. why does that sound familiar?

"Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to." Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Things not to avoid

humberto fontova: Che's slaughter of (bound and gagged) Cubans (Che was himself an Argentine) exceeded Heinrich Himmler's prewar slaughter of Germans—to scale, that is. So what happens today? Well, you see Che's face on t-shirts worn by people who oppose capital punishment!

his is a significant-minority view — absolutely POV, and absolutely relevant. the view above, or something similar, belongs in the hero-worshipping t-shirt snarf at the article finish, and the facts underlying it (at least) belong in the article in a manner other than brief dodges inserted for cover purposes (weasel-worded and filtered to basically conclude: "che killed only bad guys, though he did imprison this one good guy. forsooth"). someone will effectively deny these critical views are significant because they are "not interesting"? i believe they are far more interesting than monocular admiration passing itself off as NPOV, but neither opinion is relevant. the absence of any of the manifold strong criticisms makes the article POV, under the hidden premise that speaking well of a subject is necessarily NPOV.

wikipedia is not meant to ignore POV criticism, but rather to report it dispassionately and proportionately. quite passionate in the article and discussion is the stalwart blocking of unpopular views (POV enforcement). criticism of the man who really did what the article mostly dances around (e.g., systematic killing/brutality is referred to repeatedly as "the revolution", implying it was the good kind of killing/brutality, only against "bad guys") must be present to comply with wikipedia's neutrality policy. where is the countering view? not here. the "criticism" links at the bottom (not found as text in the article) are sparse, and often mild — not representative of significant-minority criticism. the "Writings about Che Guevara" section ranges from benign to fawning. real criticism (i.e., not softball) is limited to a few links amid overt paeans in a section titled "Criticism, praise, etc." — after we've read in the article what a hero he was, with sparse, mild descriptions of what he was really up to pointed to as criticism.

let guevara stand in front of the world audience, not just the ticket-buying fans. but first accept two truths, if they apply: 1) you favor the subject. 2) you protect him from criticism. the first is acceptable at wikipedia; the second not.

i encourage others to read every word of the article, as i have, and isolate all of the praise, weasel words, and criticism. read the "Hero cult" close of the article, then see if you can find balance to that elsewhere. look outside wikipedia and see what is said about guevara, even in circles you might not frequent or prefer. that whole body of opinion is not represented well here.

"Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

SaltyPig 11:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree that "Some believe that Guevara … will one day be considered as important an activist and thinker as Simón Bolívar" is sheer self-indulgence. That does not belong. The rest of the paragraph in question seems OK to me, though, yes, it probably would be worth also mentioning the opinion of someone actively opposed to him.
• "anybody harshly critical of guevara is pre-defined as an irrational, extremist lout…" Pre-defined? No. But I call 'em as I see 'em, and that's what we've mostly been dealing with here.
• As for Fontova: I object to citing Fontova on Che Guevara for the same reason I would object to citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon. He is nothing like an authority, and there is plenty else to draw on that is not written in bile. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

since you called that a partial response, i'll await the rest. the article has far more problems than just those things. you have prevented the inclusion of a historian with a major book on castro/guevara, based on interviews of many people who interacted with them — basically on grounds that he doesn't speak stuffily enough for you. however, it is possible that "swinish and murdering coward, this child-killer" is accurate. (see quote on euphemism above.) victims of the "hero" guevara, represented now by fontova, are to be heard with the t-shirt wearers and poster tapers. wikipedia isn't the place to spread the cult of a highly questionable man, however trendy his image may be.

any serious wikipedia editor who contributed to bringing about the current result should reexamine. your recent defense of the word-orgasm by sartre, after removing fontova as a "hatchet piece", reveals indefensible bias: a hatchet piece is what that quote from sartre requires for balance. you explicitly defend the opposite of a hatchet piece, considering it kosher to praise the man with grandiose language but not to criticize him with its negative correlation. the subject is protected from harsh criticism while it's insisted an opinion that he's "the most complete human being of our age" (wow!) remain. this requires debate? have the editors lost all objectivity with regard to che guevara? balance in this article is shot, if it ever existed. SaltyPig 07:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, when someone uses a comparison like "he was worse than Nazis!!!111", their credibility disappears. -person at work unsigned by 216.46.17.232

• • you are prevented from signing in at work? perhaps you could address what fontova really said, then try to dispute those details. mere diversionary straw man you've posted, typical of the fallacious tactics used to suppress views unfavorable of guevara here. you don't like hearing that guevara slaughtered people in large numbers? guess i wouldn't either if i were vapid enough to wear a t-shirt with his pic on it. erm, he killed a lot of people. hello! SaltyPig 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "partial response" I meant only that I was not responding to all of your points. As for leaving the description "the most complete human being of our age", the reason it merits keeping is that it was Sartre who said it. If you can come up with a quotation from a comparably (not even necessarily equally) important figure speaking against him (there should be plenty out there, do some research) I'd support it going in the article.

Frankly, though, if you want to keep questioning the motives of the other contributors (just in the last paragraph: "diversionary straw man", "typical of the fallacious tactics", "you don't like hearing", "if i were vapid enough"), I'm not very interested in dealing with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

01 September 2005

Perhaps someone would like to correct the section re the Congo. Che left Cuba after renouncing his Cuban citizenship in April 1965 -- he was definitely not leading a guerrilla movement in the Congo in 1964. Also, because of this sequence of events, the section on the Wiki page re the Congo should follow, not precede, the section about Che leaving Cuba.

Concerning the matter of whether or not there should be an accent on the "e" in Che: 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, 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 "fe" [faith] with an accent on the "e"; when she [Julia Cortes] 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 "fe", which she did.

Polaris999 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]