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

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

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

Template:Communism Portal selected Template:WP1.0 Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral Template:Calm talk Template:Notforum

Where is a criticism section of stalinist murderer and butcher?--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a murderer-he was murdered in cold blood because he overthrew a wretched, corrupted governement! User name;75.155.175.36 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)(Vivalavida)[reply]

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

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

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

it was censored because its not PC to talk about the evils of Che 134.129.203.26 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored (WP:NOT). The policies used include verifiability and neutral point of view. The article should contain both negative and positive statements about Che, in similar proportions that such statements are contained in the reliable sources, and expressed in an impartial tone. The article already contains some negative stuff about Che. If you think it needs more, you can help. Please suggest some specific words for the article, give a reliable source for it, and maybe argue why you think the article doesn't have the right balance of positive and negative in comparison to the reliable sources. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the former featured article version and found the criticism section particularly useful to enhance the NPOV of the article. Why isn't it featured in this version of the article? Editor br (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, are you referring to the article as it stood in 2004/2006 etc? A link to the particular edition may be helpful in analyzing what details you found "helpful". I do know that during the FA process a year ago or so, that it was decided not to contain a separate section on "criticism". Of note, I believe any criticism section would need to be balanced with a "praise" section, as WP:UNDUE would mandate a proportional representation. I also would posit that even those who harbor an unfavorable view of Che, would find it hard to argue that indeed there is not more praise or accolades attributed to him, than criticism (to say nothing of the validity of either position). Moreover, to shorten the article (which became quite long) the section that formerly dealt with criticism, was branched off into a separate article entitled Legacy of Che Guevara. Is it your position that the article lacks particular criticisms? Because I share the view of Copper above that these critiques should be incorporated into the overall article (if they can be verified with a reputable source) and represent a criticism contained within the major Guevara biographies.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this section, that I find particularly useful to balance the article and improve it. Coppertwig, can you point out in the Manual of Style or any other guideline why a separate criticism section is not featured in 'good articles'? I am in favor of including this section that existed in the previous FA again, immediately after the legacy. Objections? Editor br (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly object for numerous reasons. There are many criticisms that one could make of Che Guevara. However that particular (almost 3 year old) section is not only in contradiction to the majority of scholarly sources, but also blatantly incorrect on numerous accounts (to say nothing of extremely WP:POV). It also violates WP:Terrorist, WP:UNDUE, and includes a blatant advertisement for an anti-Che site which sells merchandise. How that section was allowed to last more than 1 hour to me is baffling, as anyone with even a basic background with the material could easily point out the errors (I have provided a source below [Physician section] for a copy of his medical diploma for instance).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what happened. The article was promoted March 10, 2006. Subsequently, naturally, many edits were made to it. On July 7, 2007 Jimmy Wales put a POV tag on the article [1] and [2]. saying the article was Che propaganda, that it had become far too pro Che, and lacked a balanced perspective on his negative effects. Those of us editing it tried to fix it for a while, but as we were getting nowhere, I put the article up for FAR, as it had become such a travesty from the FA version. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1. At one point, we had agreed to revert the article to the version that had passed FAR as it had been hopelessly messed up since then and could not be fixed. In fact, SandyGeorgia and another editor agreed to revert it. However, that fell through, and even those that worked hard on it, such as Jbmurray admitted the problems were massive, could not be fixed without months and moths of work by neutral editors, and voted to remove the FA status. SandyGeorgia demoted the article as POV on April 8, 2008. It has remained in that sad state since, not appreciably improved. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"SandyGeorgia demoted the article as POV on April 8, 2008." I do not "demote articles" at all; closing Featured article reviews is not within my remit as Featured article candidate delegate. (See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1; the article was defeatured on 23 April 2008 by Marskell, the FAR delegate.[3] ) In fact, Mattisse, Jbmurray, Ling.Nut and others argued that the article was "hopelessly POV",[4] while I entered no declaration. I did, however, bow out of attempts to improve the article (which I thought was on track to be saved)[5] when Mattisse expressed discomfort over my participation.[6] It is not clear why Mattisse is now suggesting that the article come to FAC when she previously opined that it was "hopelessly POV". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, learn to recognize irony (hard I know) and find something else to do with your time than follow old arguments that have nothing to do with you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A false claim that I "demoted the article as POV", explicitly mentioning me by name, definitely has everything to do with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am flattered that my "every little" post is followed with bated breath by you. Feel free to continue! I only thought (since you are always complaining about how far you are behind) that you might have something else to do. But I guess not, so again, feel free! I know with one stroke about anything at all can send your reputation into the cellar! (Have you noticed that no one else gave a s--t! Somehow my ironic little comment got NO notice, except by you, dear Sandy. So thanks for noticing.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment, like several before it, is really uncalled for, Mattisse. I think you need to redact it, and reflect on your approach in general, as I find it could stand some improvement. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment Redthoreau is replying to has been fiddled with and "refactored" out of existence. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Redthoreau's comment below [7] is responding to [8], which hasn't been edited, according to this diff [9]. Gimmetrow 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the article is in a "sad state". I also believe that old/past comments on an article ‘may’ not be helpful in the sense that they often/can refer to an article that resembles little of the current edition. Additionally, I would contend that the current article is far superior in quality to the original March 10, 2006 article that received FA status. What is your view on comparing the two? With that said, I respect your right to vehemently disagree with this assessment, and find your opinion valid + in good faith (even if I don’t agree with it). Out of curiosity, and in recognition of your dearth of editing experience, what are some flaws that you believe exist with the current December 25, 2008 article? + Possible remedies to correct them? Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 07:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ask for 'peer review'? Redthoreau, I see that you are looking for feedback, as stated above. If no one objects, I will ask for some input of other editors here. Any objections? Editor br (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, I of course welcome the participation, input, and advice of any editor who wishes to assess the article (not to mention that my 'permission' is not required). On issues pertaining to mode of style, grammar, composition, format etc I believe that a peer review can be extremely beneficial. However on matters pertaining to neutrality, npov, undue weight etc I believe an open request to any/all editors 'may' not be as useful, to the extent that judging the weight of the preponderance of information, requires a grasp of the subject area and available materials. On matters of neutrality, this could be difficult for someone with a novice background of the relevant material, as they might become easily susceptible to baseless attacks or unfounded hyperbolic partisan critiques which exist 'online' and through a Google search, but do not exist in the prevailing & heavily sourced printed materials by experts/scholars/researchers in the field. With a controversial and polarizing historical figure (such as Che), it can be very difficult to achieve a ‘fair’ portrayal (which admittedly can be in the eye of the beholder). --- Despite this I would be open to a peer review or FAC, but would first prefer discussing the matter here on the talk page and preparing the article for such a review, with editors who may have an interest in the material (and thus hopefully more than an introductory exposure). Br, what are some areas that you believe need to be addressed?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Nominate the article for FAC!. That is the best test of the article's quality. Redthoreau or other editors who have been working on it should nominate it. FA reviewers give excellent evaluation and advice. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are formatting issues I was going to work on before proposing it for FAC. See Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#Cleanup?. I haven't gotten around to starting. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, I understand your concerns regarding the difficulty to grasp the topic. Che is indeed controversial. The idea of a peer review is to check how does this article appear for a new pair of eyes. If there is a perception of a better quality than the 06' standard and an interest to nominate this article to FA in the future, a peer review may be a good start. As for my concerns, in a superficial reading I had the impression that article is too favorable to Che (e.g. most of the section that . I did not check the sources yet. I agree that internet is not the best resource to do such work, and I can check some academic publications of historians and published material in my Univ's library once I return from the break. Is there any important sources that are missing? I noted some in the to-do list, but I don't know if the status is acurate. Although I am not a specialist, I am willing to help. I work in the Wiki-portuguese and my plan was to translate the article and include some -pt sources, but as there seems to be a neutrality dispute, I prefer to work on the article before translating it. What do you think? Editor br (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

br, what is your view of the current Portugese Che Article and how it relates to this English version? Additionally, for those that can understand them, there is also the Spanish Che article or the French Che Article which may help in weighing the npov of this English version. I respect your view that the current article is "too favorable", although we have had accusations recently of the article also being "too critical". As for texts, I would recommend consulting the 3 main biographies by Anderson, Taibo II, and Castaneda (mentioned up above) which were also recognized by User:Jbmurray (whose objectivity I believe is unquestioned) as being the primary reliable texts on the issue in the past.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, you're certainly welcome to edit the article. It's my impression that there has been some criticism of the article as too favourable to Che, but not so much clearly-stated argument about what needs to be changed to balance it out. The article tends to just report things as facts, but at least one of the featured-article reviewers thought it should more often state both sides of things (e.g. along the lines of "this source says this but that source says that"); that seems like a good idea to me, too. I have no opinion about whether a peer review would be a good idea at this time, so go ahead if you like. When specific issues are raised, I might (or might not) get involved in discussing them. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick note, I will be on vacation (and not able to post) till January 4th. Upon my return I would be more than willing to take part in any peer review, group discussion, FA process etc that editors feel is warranted. I obviously do not WP:Own the article, and understand if some process should get underway before my return. In my absence, I would cede questions intended for me to User:Coppertwig ... whose judgment I hold in high regard.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the Portuguese article is bellow acceptable standards, that is why I am looking for other versions to base a new edit of the article upon. I will read the Spanish version and give my thoughts. Furthermore, I will briefly check the three bios you mentioned in the library, late January, when I go back to the University. Let me know what needs to be done in between. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Portuguese and other articles as models, I suggest a third party, neutral evaluation, such as submitting it to FAC. Even if it failed, you would get some outside feedback. Saying that this article is better than the promoted one means nothing unless validated by outside reviewers. That would be better than using foreign articles as sources —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first suggestion was to ask for a 'peer review' before submitting to the FAC, as Coppertwig mentioned some formatting issues need to be addressed before that. What do you think? Editor br (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your suggestion is a good idea. The more outside (read "disengaged") input the better. There are two issues here. One, the material regarding Che. But second, and most important in my mind, is what makes a good, or even Featured article, on Wikipedia. I think we all agree that we want the article to meet the highest standards. This is independent of the POV views of editors. I would like to see this article go through all the standard steps, rather than remain isolated in a POV war universe. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refrained from asking for a 'peer review' as I think I need to be the first to review it before asking for others to make comments on edits that Coppertwig and Redthoreau are doing for months. My first hunch was that it was POV, but I did not check the sources, did not try to improve the article nor edited it, and I did not provide any constructive feedback on how make it better. I find easy in Wikipedia to criticize others, but hard to actually improve the content or collaborate with other editors. So, in order to avoid this misbehavior, I want to check the sources, give a close reading to the article, and exchange some ideas on how we can improve it with the active editors of this article about Che before even considering proposing a 'peer review' myself. That is my plan, at least (in line with what was proposed by Redthoreau above). =) Editor br (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, this sounds like a reasonable course of action. I am pleased to know you are open to a thorough investigation based on the scholarly materials.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a little scary. There was a long time when Coppertwig and Redthoreau double-teamed and Redthoreau was the only one allowed to edit. So I am somewhat surprised that others are allowed to now. I think you would have to be very careful. That is why I would prefer to see outside editors involved. Coppertwig and Redthoreau have guarded the content very carefully. I personally would not dare to edit the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, you are welcome to edit the article, as always, as is anyone else. If there's something about my behaviour that's bothering you, feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page if you want, or follow other steps in dispute resolution if you prefer. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I have no power or authority to prevent you nor anyone from editing the article. The previous instances you mention were merely an issue of disagreement between Copper, me, and you. Although it is true that we had previous conflict many months ago, I have long since unilaterally apologized to you for my part in the escalation, and wish to move on. Your presence here is just as valid and welcome as any other editor, despite our past difference of opinion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a new reader of this article I have to agree with Editor br that this article seems to really be biased and "pro Che". I came to wiki to read about Che after seeing that a movie had been made about him and I knew very little about him except that he was some kind of rebel and that people either loved him or hated him, but most who wear his t-shirt know nothing of him. Now having a reputation of being loved or hated is pretty strong. When I read this article today I just had a feeling that the writer/s were pro Che. I know you will ask for specific evidence and that is hard for me to do because its just the overall feeling I get from the whole article and not a specific line. The article just seems to use words like hero and revolutionary more than once. A hero to one could be a villan to another. A revolutionary to one is a rebel to another. Do you see what I mean? I get the sense from the entrie article that it was written by someone who loved Che, but where is the balance to this? Redthroueau states many, many times on this discussion page that he does not want someone who is not "well versed or educated about Che" to add or change anything about this article. It just seems to me that you are really saying that YOU are the only one who knows anything about Che and that only YOU can deem changes worthy of someone you seem to worship. Again, this is what I get from the tone of what you write, I may be completely wrong. Really, I am not trying to be negative. Sometime people just get themselves so deeply involved with a project that they begin to feel a deep connection or ownership of it and take it really hard when anyone tries to criticize it. I think that is what has happened here. I am new to commenting in discussion and know nothing of the wiki process, but it seems obvious to me that this article needs some serious POV help. Just my 2 cents and I am sorry if I step on anyones toes. Circling skies (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circling Skies, first welcome to Wikipedia. To your comments ... [1] What was the movie you saw about Che before visiting this article, and how did it match up in comparison? [2] The "writers" views on Che (pro or con) should be irrelevant to the article. What is relevant is the opinion of the published reliable sources. If those sources have a majority favorable view, then ipso facto, the article will reflect that reality. [3] The word "hero" only appears twice in the entire article, and both times in the legacy section (where he is also referred to as a "butcher" and "ruthless executioner" according to some). [4] I do NOT worship Che (in fact I don't worship anyone) and recognize that all human beings are complex with both positive and negative attributes. My goal as a historian and editor here is to ensure that the article does not devolve into a partisan hack-job or love-fest and stays true to the main biographies on the subject. Hence why sources from Che-Lives or Che Sucks (dot)-com are not utilized. Guevara is a very polarizing figure, and those with the most impassioned views on him (from both sides) are often those with very little information of his actual life. If one has only read a Conservative attack piece by Humberto Fontova, or a "Viva Che" piece from Che-lives.com - then of course they will have a problem with the article as it stands. The article I believe does an admirable job of trying to blend the views of reputable and non-partisan sources and relies on several of the major biographies. However with that said, I am always open to criticisms and attempts to improve this mission, as long as any editor makes a good faith effort to mutually investigate the printed materials and judge them with respect to accuracy and WP:UNDUE weight.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this entire article, talk page, and some of the talk history, I tend to agree with several users that feel that there may be a POV problem with this article. Redthoreau, while I appreciate your passion on the subject, any time a source has been mentioned that provides a counterpoint to the article, you simply blow it off as faulty. It certainly makes sense that many of the criticisms of Che come from conservative sources, just as Anderson and Castaeda's texts come from sources looking for redeeming qualities in Che's legacy. Both men were liberal and pro-Che. This does not make their views any less valid, of course, as their work was thoroughly researched (and well-written, I might add). I do question your simply blowing off the sources that have been presented by other editors as "anti-Che" and "conservative"; these qualities, of themselves, do not make the contentions they contain any less valid or relevant. While some requests (eg labeling as a "terrorist") would probably not be advisable, I do find it odd that essentially every criticism of Che is boiled down into only two sentences in the article. Clearly there is a considerably larger amount of criticism directed at Che (as has been demonstrated by several other editors) than is referenced in the article, and what is there is not "throughout" the article as you stated was advisable when you were defending the removal of the criticism section. I am not really on either side of this debate, I just thought I would try to add some neutral feedback on the issue. Cfirst (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cfirst, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Looking over the article, I find a host of unflattering characteristics mentioned (not merely "one sentence" as you claim). To demonstrate this ALL of the below bolded phrases or words are included in the current article, which I am combining to form a paragraph:

"Che was a controversial radical, notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors and thus has been occasionally reviled. He rarely bathed, sent execution squads to hunt deserters, and was feared for brutality and ruthlessness and personally responsible for execution of a number of men. Several hundred people were executed at La Cabana on cases where he reviewed the appeals, he accidentally shot himself when his gun dropped, he was described as “crackers” for his desire to have fired nukes at NYC during Cuban missile crisis. He considered his Congo expedition the history of a failure and is viewed by some as a spokesman for a failed ideology and as a ruthless executioner. Then Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism for many years & he remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community, who view him with animosity as the butcher of La Cabaña."

Now obviously if someone posted this as a singular 'rant', we would announce it POV, however all of the above information is present in the present article (that a few editors seem to unfortunately believe is hagiographical). ----- With all that said, I am currently looking on researching some more critical aspects (in addition to other things), which I plan to include in the article in the near future, and would welcome any editor to propose certain info and its source if they so choose. Some of these factors I am attempting to address are: (1) His unfavorable effect on the Cuban economy as head of the Central Bank, (2) Further elaboration on those executions he personally pulled the trigger for ... under what rationale and against whom (3) Examples of his rigid, dogmatic, and intolerant personality (4) More elaboration on the executions at La Cabana with both pro and con rationales for their legitimacy ETC. ----- Obviously these issues need to be addressed in WP:NPOV with respect to WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE, and with cross-sourcing (along with ideally not being blatantly contradicted by the major biographies) – but I believe that all of that is possible. There are a myriad of unflattering characteristics about Che’s flawed life/legacy/impact in texts, which are not written in an accusatory un-encyclopedic hyperbolic tone.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be something about how he's the Godfather of Terrorism -- (67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 67, (1) Such adjectives/neologisms would be inappropriate and WP:POV, (2) Wikipedia has words that they WP:AVOID and "Terrorist"/"Terrorism" is one of them, (3) Che is not known for having carried out any "terrorist" attacks, thus calling him the "Godfather" (itself an inappropriately hyperbolic term) would be unwarranted. --- As an aside, I would suggest expanding your reading list on the subject beyond hyper-partisan blogs or negationist/polemicists (I can provide you an array of varied sources, both pro-and-con, if interested).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red, the Osama Bin Laden article has the word terroist in the first paragraph. Che Guevara was a terrorist he terrorized Cuba, the Congo, Bolivia, he attempted cordinated attacks on the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Bell but this plan was foiled by the FBI and RCMP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (67.201.136.122 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 67, it is your WP:POV that he "terrorized" Cuba, others (including the majority of verifiable and reliable published sources) disagree with your assessment. We are not here to include our own personal views (that should be left to a blog / editorial letter etc). We as editors are here to document the views of those experts, scholars in the field, and neutral sources - who have published material on the subject. This WP:FRINGE theory about Che plotting to blow up the Statue of Liberty, is not included in any of the 3 major Guevara biographies (Anderson, Taibo II, Castaneda) or the other (30 + biographies that deal with Che), nor has it been noted by WP:reliable or non-partisan sources. The only person I am aware that makes such a claim is Humberto Fontova, who would not be considered an objective or scholarly (main source) for such a claim (or any other for that matter), especially one that does not appear in other sources dealing with the same subject. Moreover, Fontova’s sourcing (par for the course with him unfortunately) for this "accusation" is also not clear, nor is there definitive proof to WP:verify it.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red, most of John Lee Anderson's book was writen within Cuba, how can an objective and unbiased account be writen from inside a police state, that heroizes Che. Che is a hero in Lebanon where more succesful terrorists influenced by Che, drove out democracy, then proceeeded to drive democracy out of Isreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 67, Jon Lee Anderson spent over 5 years researching his 814 page biography, which is viewed by nearly all reviewers as the definitive English-language work on the subject (the first 4 pages of the book are cited accolades from nearly every newspaper/magazine in the Western Press) + the book contains over 50 pgs of sources. Moreover, although yes Anderson did spend 3 years within Cuba (speaking to friends, family, consulting govt archives, Che’s widow, fellow guerrillas etc ... and no not Fidel or Raul) he also spent (as he discusses in the introduction) 2 years traversing Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mexico, The United Kingdom, Moscow, Washington D.C., and yes even Cuban exiles in Miami (including CIA agent Felix Rodriguez). I will let others decide if Anderson should have spent 3 years in Cuba (the place that is most discussed in the book & for which Che is most known) or whether those years would have been more fruitful in say Iceland or Bangladesh. --- Have you read Anderson’s work? If you haven’t, I would urge you to check out Amazon’s reader reviews and possibly acquire yourself a copy. Anderson himself states (pg IV) that his mission was to counter the “Official Cuban hagiographies” & the “tiresome demonizations” which existed on the subject. Furthermore you have the biographies by Castaneda and Taibo II as well, which do not mention your proposed revision. ----- As for your comments on the tragic turmoil which has plagued Lebanon, Che’s standing as a “hero” there could be relevant to the Legacy of Che Guevara article, but I’m not sure Wikipedia affords editors the leeway to blame current political actions (regardless of their heinous nature) on figures that have been dead for 41 years, and who may have “inspired” such behavior. If you are Lebanese, I can certainly empathize with your plight, but these issues are unfortunately not relevant to this article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redif had wrote it in Iceland after doing research in Cuba I would trust Anderson's work to be reliable yes (not sure about censors in Bangledesh), but he didn't he wrote it in Cuba under the eyes of Castro's Regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, tongue-in-cheek sarcasm can become lost in written form. IP 67, the point was that Anderson compiled research for the portion on Che's life in Cuba - in the appropriate of all places - Cuba. Additionally, Castro's "censors" had no editorial control over Anderson's work. The final composition was formulated at the end of the 5 years of research and compiled outside of Cuba, free from those omnipresent "eyes" you seem to believe Castro possesses. Jon Lee Anderson lives in Spain and New York City and is not under the auspices of "Castro's regime". Do you have any verifiable evidence (what Wikipedia relies on WP:VERIFY) to call Anderson's research into question, or is it simply your unsubstantiated belief that the book you apparently have never read, must be unfairly slanted?   Redthoreau(talk)RT 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Back to the topic at hand. Che Guevara said the to Daily Worker (a Communist Newspapaer) reporter Sam Russell "If the missiles had remained (in Cuba),We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims." That is terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) IP 67, Che's comments to the Socialist Daily Worker are noted in the current article, and in Jon Lee Anderson's book [pg 545] – (which you apparently dismiss as biased). However, the order that you list the quote, does not appear that way in Anderson nor Castañeda's Compañero [pg 231]. In Castañeda's book the quote goes:

"If they (U.S.) attack, we shall fight to the end. If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all ... but we haven't got them (the rockets), so we shall fight with what we've got."

(Note this is after the repelled invasion at Playa Giron). Moreover, the exact verbage may not be important, as we already know that Guevara told Henry Brandon of The Sunday Times, in October 1962 before the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved (before the Daily Worker interview)

"Direct aggression against Cuba would mean nuclear war. The Americans speak about such aggression as if they did not know or did not want to accept this fact. I have no doubt they would lose such a war." Article

Now leaving aside Guevara's (almost comical) cockiness and bravado, telling a nation that if they attack the nation you are at the head of, that your nation reserves the right to retaliate to such an aggression with a nuclear attack = is not "Terrorism" per the normal or even stretched definition (keeping in mind that this neologism grows with the day to encompass any political opponent for some people). It is part of the common parlance for nations with nukes, to declare that they will use them if threatened, or if their friends are even threatened (For instance Hillary Clinton said this year that if Iran attacked Israel they would be "Obliterated" Clip). Further still, (as if it already wasn't clear enough), WP:Terrorist recommends against using such a bias term WP:NPOV and 99 % of all published sources refrain from ever referring to Guevara as a "Terrorist". As editors we are here to report what the scholarly and WP:Reliable sources state, not to INVENT what we wish they reported (or how we personally feel) ... this concept seems a difficult one for you to grasp.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but Castro (Who appointed Guevara) became head of Cuba in an illeagal coup, it is not a legitamate government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP 67, that is your opinion, not a stated fact (nor a commonly held view). Also which or whose "law" are you relying on when you declare the overthrow of Batista's dictatorship illegal? There is no international body that precipitates the “legitimate” means for a transfer of power, and coup d'état or internal revolution is recognized as a ‘legitimate’ transfer of power within international law. If they weren’t, the U.N. would have to expel half of their members.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baptista coup was in violation of Cuba's constetution signed in 1940. The Castro accession was legitimate only until the provisional government was able to hold elections in accordance with the costetution. Castro violated that agreement and and betrayed the rebbelion as such the Castro should have been removed from power, which was attempted from 1959-1965 however US support of the rebels ceased in 1962, this was a failure of the Americans as the USSR (also an illegitamte government) was supplying planes, tanks, and advisors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Redthoreau. We report what's in the reliable sources. I don't think the main biographies of Guevara call him a "terrorist". [Deleting possible BLP vio.]^{(23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC))} To avoid WP:OR, calling someone a "terrorist" would require a source that calls them a "terrorist", not just a source that says they would have used nuclear weapons. And then we would have to consider the relative weight and notability of such a source in comparison to the main biographies etc. I'm sure Guevara has been called many things, but it wouldn't be appropriate or concise to list them all in this summary article. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has always been very selective in what it reports, even from Anderson. I referenced many things from Anderson that were deleted when you and Redthoreau were controlling the pages. Also, do we take what Nazi Germany said was the "truth" because they said it? User:Jimmy Wales slapped a POV tag on this article for a reason, and thing have only gone down hill since you and Redthoreau took control of the article. If you have confidence in the article, why don't you submit it for an independent review? GA, FAC, Peer Review"? Let some other "eyes" see it. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he called a physician in the first sentence? To my knowledge he never practised. There are rumors that he might not even have graduated.[10]--87.162.13.177 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the fact that the source you are relying on is a partisan "blog", this issue was discussed recently ... with the archived discussion being here ---> Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#"physician"?. It is irrefutable that Guevara studied and practiced medicine throughout his life. He also served in a war as a medic and provided medical care to countless individuals (as discussed in his diary). The issue seems to be whether "physician" implies possessing a M.D.? Note that he is not referred to as a "Dr." even though during his life, and since his death, many reliable sources have done so. In my opinion "physician" is sufficiently vague to describe the role he played at various points in his life, but I am open to suggestions as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to 'rumors/smears' of there not being a diploma, I've tracked down a published text which contains a copy of Guevara's original medical diploma (showing that he in fact graduated). The source is [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer - Translated from the Spanish by Sarah L. Smith, Marea Editorial, 2006, ISBN 9871307071. Ferrer was a longtime childhood friend of Che, and apparently when Guevara passed the last of his 12 exams in 1953, he "shook the diploma in Calica's face" to show him that he had passed. Ferrer had been telling Guevara that he would never finish, and this was Guevara's way to finally (and triumphantly) show him he had (Che also gave him a copy), so that they could embark on their trip throughout Latin America (Che's 2nd, this one subsequently after the more widely publicized Motorcycle Diaries). --- I would be more than willing to scan the page/image and post it here on the talk page, as long as Wikipedia would allow me to do so. Or perhaps I will make a fair use claim, and include a link to it as part of the article. Any suggestions are welcome.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is not my general neighborhood, but I sometimes work with Coppertwig on copyright issues, and he asked me to share my opinion on this. :) First, this is too recent to be public domain, so the document can't be posted here on the talk page unless the copyright owner has released it or licensed it in a way that we can use it. If you want to advance a fair use claim, I would consider getting feedback first at WP:MCQ. This doesn't seem to fall into any of the standard allowances at WP:NFC, though perhaps it could be worked around into point 8 under images (kind of dubious; as I understand it, that point is when an image is itself historically significant, like File:Kent State massacre.jpg). Any fair use, obviously, would require commentary. Though I have not worked on this article (and don't intend to at this point :)), I do wonder if it it isn't sufficiently simply to add a line somewhere in the article (which I've not read; maybe it's there already) about this event with an inline citation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your input and will add a note to the references.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Showing he graduated from medical school would not prove he was a physician, only that he graduated from medical school. Not the same thing. Is there much argument that he graduated from medical school? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, he served on the medical faculty in Mexico City, worked as a physician in a leper colony, served as a medic and dentist in a Guerrilla War, diagnosed as a physician scores of illnesses and provided some treatments to Campesinos during his time in the Sierra Maestra and Bolivia etc. As for disputing the actual medical degree, it has become a recent line of attack from ardent Che critics (outside of Wikipedia), to further undermine his overall biography, luckily it is easily disproven.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the link "shades of gray" in the "Legacy" section links to the song "Shades of Gray" by the Monkees. It should probably be deleted or link to "Grayscale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heruvaltir (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...why isn't there anything about the victims of Che Guevara? Anything about the several thousand summary executions he claimed to have ordered, or the many murders he himself committed, say the 14-year old he ordered murdered along with many other innocent civilians La Cabana Fortress (names of these individualis down below) or the pregnant lady he decided to shoot in the stomach..? Does anyone who can edit this article care to mention his rhetoric and his quotes?? "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." -The Cuban Revolution : Years of Promise (2005) by Teo A. Babun and Victor Andres Triay, p. 57

Did we ever talk about he was more than just a Marxist but a Communist? The 156 executed at La Cabaña Fortress prison at Che Guevara’s orders?

Or do these facts seem irrelevant for whatever reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.185.84 (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 70, first to some of your claims/objections. [1] The "thousands" (the number Rodriguez claims was actually 1,500) of executions that Che "admitted" to have ordered are mentioned by Daniel James (1969: pg 113) in reference to a claim made by CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, from an alleged conversation with Che before his execution. However Jorge Castañeda in Compañero, notes that this information is not included in Rodriguez own memoirs, his report to the CIA, or in a personal interview with Castaneda in 1995 (pg 143). [2] The accusation of a 14 year old boy being killed by Che originates from a December 28, 1997, letter to the editor of the El Nuevo Herald (Spanish Miami Herald) by Pierre San Martin (who claims to have been a prisoner at La Cabana). The claim had been widely purported by Humberto Fontova (whose father was held prisoner for a brief time and then released) in his litany of Anti-Che articles for Conservative websites, and has thus sort of "entered" the public debate ... despite the fact that it is not mentioned in the other 40 or so Che biographies (which do not utilize the hyperbolic language of Fontova). [3] To the "156 executed on Che's orders", Guevara reviewed the appealed convictions from some of the revolutionary tribunals that were dolled out by a panel of 3 judges. As a comparison, as Governor of Texas, now President Bush signed 158 death warrants after reviewing the last appeal, yet it would be pov to announce him a "butcher" or list those names on his Wikipedia article (although I believe some would probably like to). Moreover, the article does already mention that several hundred people were killed during this stint (The published numbers range from 55 to 550 usually - see Castañeda pg 143). [4] As for showing no qualms about executing, that is indisputable and mentioned in the article. Guevara did execute a number of people from his own unit for stealing food, falling asleep on guard duty, raping local peasants, giving away their position to Batista's forces etc. These cases appear in the main biographies, and appear in this article (although I would be ok with more elaboration on this practice by Guevara).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think you are correct in stating that the article is missing much mention of EcG's roles in the cuban administration and his role as an executioner and such. Even Hemmingway wrote about it. A very poorly balanced article if you ask me. easytiger (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EasyTiger, if Ernest Hemingway wrote about the executions, then please include a source so we can look into it. Unsubstantiated claims without a reference do not provide much assistance.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there are huge gaping holes in this article. The article is shameless enough to refer to him executing "war criminals" and compares it to the Nuremberg trials. That is absolutely ridiculous, Che Guevara was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people whose only crime was saying bad things about the communist system and the new government. And that "93% approved of the executions" statistic is garbage, you cant trust data coming out of repressive communist countries. Should we also have glowing articles about how Stalin won elections in a landslide? In addition where are the mentions of Guevara setting up the forced labor system in Cuba? He was responsible for setting up a system where people who listened to rock music, engaged in homosexual behaviour, or had any other lifestyle traits he didn't like were sent to forced labor camps. This is extremely noteworthy and failure to mention the forced labor camps says volumes about the level of bias in this article. How about his efforts to discredit and stamp out all the pro-democratic and any other non-communist anti-batista elements of the revolution after seizing power? This article should not be playing into the whole romantic myth that Che Guevara was a freedom fighter, it needs to mention the negative things he did also. He spent more time trying to stamp out freedom in Cuba than he did fighting for it when he was allying with different groups against Batista. User:CaptainNerdling —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Feel free to suggest specific words to add to the article, along with reliable sources to back them up. Note that WP:NPOV requires that the article be balanced; we've been relying mostly on 3 main biographies; not everything that is published in every source can be included. Whether some things Che did were "crimes" or not may be debatable, especially if they were not crimes according to the government of the time. A previous discussion on this talk page which seems relevant is at Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18#the New variant of part After the revolution. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find the time I will write a section on his role in administering forced labor camps and figure out a better way to word the explanation of his role in executions so that it doesnt sound like he was only executing war criminals. For the time being can we at least delete that BS statistic that 93% approved of the executions? That is unreliable by any standard. If we allow this statistic then we should also be allowing statistics coming out of the 1930s Soviet Union about how beloved Stalin was by the Russians. User:CaptainNerdling(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

CaptainNerdling, the 93 % survey is cited because it appears in a major Che Guevara biography. We are only here to cite the published material from the main sources, not to 'rewrite' or 'create' our own version/opinions on events. Moreover, irrelevant red herrings about Stalin are not helpful, please stay on topic.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a major biography written by a devout leftist who took a bogus survey as gospel. This is not scientifically collected data that was gathered from people who had no fear of retribution by the government if they said "no Castro/Che cant just kill whomever they please". If the statistic is to remain in there then at a bare minimum an explanation of its context, how the data was gathered, and how it is not scientifically valid would be necessary in my view. Taken at face value a reader might be inclined to assume that this is an actual representation of how 93% of Cubans felt and that is misleading. User:CaptainNerdling(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As I said before, I can only check the sources late January, when I will have access to the bibliography. Meanwhile, I agree with CaptainNerdling reasoning that the survey most likely would be bogus. The paragraph also seem to ratify one POV. Here "Raúl Gómez Treto,... considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified" you are providing an opinion that validates that the trials were a good thing. The other two "facts", including the survey, are also trying to support Che's actions. This is POV. I think we should delete all the sentences starting from "Raul... " to "Guevara concurred". Let the facts speak for themselves. Objections? Editor br (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, do you have a published source that describes this survey as "bogus"? It is not up to editors to eliminate material over a 'hunch' of it being illegitimate. As for Treto his opinion is valid as it is contained within a peer reviewed academic journal, and merely describes the rationale at the time of those in the Cuban government. It is up to readers to decipher how much weight to give that view. Moreover, nowhere does it state that the trials were a "good thing" nor a "bad thing". They were mostly public tribunals (many occurred in stadiums) which in some cases resulted in those guilty being executed. Ones views on whether this was justified (as with all death penalty cases in or after a war) is up to the observer. For instance, pointing out the rationale for why the United States nuked several hundred thousand Japanese does not excuse nor justify it – but to exclude such a rationale would in itself be pov. I will look more into how this survey was conducted (and encourage you to do so as well) and see if there is a published critique to call its accuracy into question.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, as I hope you noticed by now, I am trying to provide balanced opinions in this talk page, being able to actively contribute in writing the article once I go back to United States (I don't have access to the books here). This does not prevent me to assess the neutrality of this paragraph and if, although written with reliable and academic sources, this article is portraying only one POV. The three sentences starting in "Raul.." and ending in "... Guevara concurred." are providing a justification about the trials that are only an opinion, not a fact. If this is a disputable and controversial topic, either you only 'let the fact speak for themselves' and remove the opinion, or you provide competing views with the due weight that this highly sensitive topic requires. I am not a huge fan of using other articles as comparison, but as you mentioned the Hiroshima bombing, please note that this section debates about the competing views about the bombing, never presents justifications that argue that the bombing was necessary or acceptable, and in articles with coverage equivalent to about one paragraph about the incident only state the facts, no opinion. (see Hiroshima, that provides equivalent coverage of the bombings as the Che article does about the the trials). I am still in favor of deleting the three sentences, not convinced that the justification in this paragraph is adequately providing a NPOV and I welcome the opinion of other editors in this debate. Editor br (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no one is objecting the change anymore, so I will delete the referred sentences and improve the NPOV of the article. Editor br (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the edit, because I did not notice that RT was still in process of writing the reply to my inquiry: [11] Editor br (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, I appreciate your commitment to collaboration ... please see my lengthy reply and sourced expose below, and I welcome your thoughts. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Nerdling, re "war criminals": These are the sentences in the article containing those words:

• "Following the Cuban revolution, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, ratifying sentences which in some cases utilized firing squads." I think this is OK because it says "convicted as war criminals"; this article is not stating that they actually were war criminals.
• "In 1959, the revolutionary government extended its application to the whole of the republic and to war criminals captured and tried after the revolution." This use of "war criminals" looks non-NPOV to me. I suggest inserting "those it considered" before "war criminals", and adding a comma after "criminals". Alternatively, "war criminals" could be put in quotation marks.
• "Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals." This looks non-NPOV to me. I suggest inserting "those considered to be" before "traitors", and changing "and" to "or". What does "Batista's war criminals" mean? How about deleting "Batista's"?
• It says that the Cuban Ministry of Justice said that it followed the same procedures as the Nuremburg trials. I think it may be OK to report that.

In response to CaptainNerdling and Editor br, I suggest deleting this sentence: "With 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been murdered at the hands of Batista's accomplices,[56] and a survey at the time showing 93% public approval for the tribunal process,[57] the newly empowered Cuban government along with Guevara concurred." but I suggest keeping the previous sentence "Raul ... justice into their own hands". I think it's reasonable to report the rationale given by the government for the executions, but the second sentence seems to be going further and trying to convince the reader of one POV.^{(Struck after reading Redthoreau's comments in other section below. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC))} I also suggest changing "considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified" to something else, along the lines of "suggested removing restrictions on the death penalty". Someone with access to the biographies will have to help with the exact wording; I seem to have misplaced my copy of Anderson. (Editor br, I see only two sentences from "Raul..." to "...concurred".)[reply]

Thanks for helping to work on POV issues with this article; it's good to have some new editors involved. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copper, I agree with all of your proposed changes (to increase NPOV) above and in the absence of any objection, encourage you to make those as soon as you have time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes I suggested above, except that I didn't (yet) change "considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified" to "suggested removing restrictions on the death penalty". I'm not clear whether you meant it's supported by the source, Redthoreau. Would you please either do that edit yourself if you think it's correct, or state clearly that it's verifiable and then I'll do it. I'm just hesitant to change the words without checking whether it's still correct, since it will be saying slightly different facts (i.e. did Treto actually "suggest" that or merely argue that it was justified.) Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article on Che Guevara is a biased point of view. The little paragraph on Che Guevara executions could possibly even contain weasel words. I will be tagging this article with the bias template. Rent A Troop (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rent A Troop, although you are free to "feel" whatever you'd like, tagging an article should not be a 'drive by process' for an editor based off of a feeling (hence I removed it for the time being). Anyone here is welcome to bring up specifics and cite sources for their claims. Although a few editors have mentioned a pov concern lately, nobody seems to be providing many specifics or citing sources for their claims. If you believe any weasel words are in the article then please voice that issue here so they can be discussed and possibly corrected. The template should be a last resort, once specific concerns are listed, evaluated for legitimacy, and THEN if there is a belief of gridlock between editors on content --- a template is warranted. If any article that someone read which didn't "feel" right to them was allowed to be tagged, then every article would be. To the specific issue of the execution paragraph that you mention ... [1] How do you believe this is WP:POV? [2] What aspects do you believe are missing or incorrect? [3] What sources are you utilizing to arrive at that belief? [4] What texts have you read on Che Guevara which you believe allow you to properly judge the overall “correct” feel of the articles material? Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History is full of nice middle-class boys like Che killing people who don't agree with them - what is so notable about that?86.42.199.193 (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 86, I'll try to contain my cynicism and believe that you are truly interested in actual investigation on the matter, but first to correct your statement - Che would probably be seen originally as part of the "upper class", most would probably not refer to him as "nice", although he showed compassion to campesinos and spoke of their plight, he was also an armed and rigid guerrilla, who believed in the validity of violence to overthrow systems he found to be unjust, and as for WP:NOTABILITY Che's is unquestioned, by any stretch of the definition (regardless of whether you agree with his actions).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is rather ordinary stuff - going to school &c. The extra-ordinary aspects were supporting Castro at an early stage and then other people putting his photo on posters and T-shirts after his death. All the rest followed from these things and is not really notable.86.42.232.56 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 86, although the majority of the article deals with Guevara’s life (after) meeting Fidel Castro (while other articles 1 / 2 / 3 detail the rise of him as an emblem / symbol), it is still common practice (if not required) that an article deal with the individuals entire life (hence mentions of his upbringing etc). This is par for the course, and found with every article of a historic figure on Wikipedia.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there's a bias tag on the article, it should include a pointer to a specific section of this talk page which contains a list of specific problems that would need to be fixed. (For example, you can put {{POV|Name of talk page section}}; see Template:POV). I think it's probably not necessary to have a tag, anyway. We can still discuss things on the talk page and try to improve the article.

While Guevara is not notable for having parents, going to school and travelling around the country, those parts of his life are described in order to give the reader context to his life and to let the reader try to imagine how he came to be what he was. I find it interesting, for example, that he suffered severely from asthma and I like to wonder how that affected his attitude to life. The early life section may in a way get more weight than it deserves because it comes at the beginning of the article, but arranging the life chronologically is a logical way to do things and it might be difficult to find any other way that works equally well. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to find video and sound files that aren't reliant on realplayer? 69.249.150.28 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 67, the format should play on whichever video player is your default on your computer. You can download realplayer --> Here (for PC) or Here if you own a Mac.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below I am offering a lengthy look at the executions at La Cabaña Fortress in regard to the 3 major Che biographies [all of which have been peer reviewed in academic journals] (by Anderson, Castaneda, & Taibo II) that is not WP:OR. Possibly in the future this could be part of an FAQ in order to prevent the talk page from circularly arguing these points every few months when a new editor (commonly a previously uninvolved IP) decides to join us or object to the current article.

It is clear that Guevara’s 6 month stint as Commander at La Cabaña (January 2 through June 12, 1959) has become a "lightning rod" (possibly justified) for Che critics. It is also clear that there exists the "recognized or common" account of events contained in the majority of Che biographies (I am using the main 3 here below), History Channel/Discovery Channel documentaries Video, and mainline press – and then there exists the account of events from Cuban-American exile opposition WP:UNDUE, primarily written on websites solely as a personal critique/attack of Guevara or Communism, to a staunchly conservative audience (usually by Humberto Fontova in a hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone). In the past it was determined that Fontova’s Gonzo style ‘screeds’ (which at times I admit are entertainingly written) & vernacular (to say nothing of sourced accuracy) qualify as WP:FRINGE and thus for the purposes of this article we decided to rely on the 3 main biographies. What both sides (to a certain extent agree on) is that people were shot by firing squad after a revolutionary tribunal process (whether these were legit proceedings or ‘Kangaroo Courts’ is disputed). The NUMBERS OF THOSE EXECUTED directly under Guevara’s watch differ (this is also because there is the # killed nationwide in Cuba or in other prisons under different commanders) and then those killed directly at La Cabana (which would have been the only deaths one could directly tie to Guevara’s oversight or cases where he ratified the sentences already dolled out by the 3 person tribunal). Castaneda in Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara - notes (pg 143) how Historians differ on the # killed and place it as anywhere from 200-700. Cables from the US embassy in 1959 placed the number killed at around 200 in early 1959. He also notes how Fidel Castro himself would acknowledge that the number executed from 1959-1960 was around 550 (Nationwide). Jon Lee Anderson on (pg 387) of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life notes how 55 executions were carried out directly under Che’s command at La Cabana during the “first 100 days” of 1959, however Che was in charge for around the first 180 days of that year. Anderson also notes how nationwide there were “several hundred” such executions over the next year as a result of the revolutionary tribunals. However this is reference to the entire nation and in reference to the entire year of 1959, while Che only oversaw La Cabaña for the first 6 months. Of note Armando Lago’s unpublished work has compiled 216 names of people believed to have been executed under Guevara’s orders, but those numbers also stretch through the entire 1957-1960 campaign and include deaths during the guerrilla combat stage of the war (including some of Guevara’s own men who deserted, disobeyed commands, fell asleep on guard duty, stole food, raped peasants etc). Nevertheless the article at present states that “several hundred” were executed during this time at La Cabana, which I believe is a fair and accurate declaration = [Does anyone object? And if so Why?]

Now to the issue of RATIONALE for the executions (which is relevant), Several biographers and general sources on Che/Cuba etc on the time note how Batista’s forces were alleged to have killed upwards of 20,000 Cuban citizens during his reign. Paco Ignacio Taibo on pg 267 of Guevara, Also Known as Che, notes how a nationwide survey at the time showed public support for the tribunals and executions as being 93 %. (of note Fidel had not pronounced his revolution as a “socialist” one at this time, and the biographers note there was overwhelming consensus among the public that Batista’s “henchmen” should be tried and shot if convicted.) Taibo notes (pg 267) how many of Batista’s men tried during tribunals were accused of “gouging out eyes, castrating, burning flesh, ripping off testicles and fingernails, shoving iron into woman’s vaginas, burning feet, cutting off fingers etc”. Jon Lee Anderson reports a similar account on (pg 388) about how there was “little public opposition to the wave of revolutionary justice at the time” and recalls several private media outlets (not run by Fidel) who were in a “lynching mood”. This Jan 1959 American news clip from the time, I believe captures some of that sentiment. Anderson on (pgs 388-389) notes how many of the audiences for these tribunals (many were held in public stadiums) found the sentences too “benign” and wanted even harsher measures used. Were there some “innocent” (however you define that) people killed ? (statistically one would imagine so), however Jon Lee Anderson, (admittedly only one biographers opinion, but not directly contradicted by the other 2 either) during his 5 years of research (which included time in Miami amongst exiles) notes:

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

The last issue of focus is the competing views on how CHE HIMSELF saw these tribunals and executions. All 3 main biographers agree that by this time he had become a “hardened” man who showed no qualm about having those he deemed guilty of torture shot. Below is a quoted statement by Castaneda (pg 143-144) that I believe could be helpful:

“Conflicting views exist of Che's role in the executions at La Cabaña. Some exiled opposition biographers report that the Argentine enjoyed the rituals of the firing squad, and that he organized them with gusto-though they acknowledge that the orders came from Fidel Castro. Others relate that Guevara suffered at every execution, pardoning as many prisoners as he could - though he did not hesitate to carry out orders when he felt they were justified ... Guevara's responsibility for events at La Cabaña ... must nonetheless be seen within the context of the time. There was no bloodbath; nor were innocent people exterminated in any large or even significant numbers. After the excesses of Batista ... it is surprising that there were so few abuses and executions. It is also true however that Che had no qualms about the death penalty, or summary and collective trials ... If the only way to defend the revolution was to execute its enemies, he would not be swayed by humanitarian or political arguments ... He never wondered about or agonized over the link between means and ends."

---- TO CONCLUDE ---- I am more than content with providing a balanced analysis of the situation and mentioning how some sources mention that Guevara “reveled in the process” while others note how he agonized over it. Obviously the issue needs to be condensed for this article (and maybe possibly given its own article in order to cover all of the varying viewpoints). Thoughts? Suggestions? I can compose a paragraph here on the talk page first if editors would like, of a possible addition to the present article. Additionally, utilizing sources with your objections is helpful, and since I have access to pretty much every book in print on the matter, I can follow along with your rationale. Thanks and I apologize for the length.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedThoreau, you say that the biographies have been peer reviewed. I'm sorry if you've already explained this, (in which case I hope you can help me find your previous answer,) but could you please provide citations for the peer reviews, and explain how books can be peer reviewed, since I'm not familiar with that process?

I think a talk page FAQ is a good idea. I'm currently working on an archive guide for the talk page archives of the Circumcision article. After I get further with that, I may start a FAQ for the Circumcision article, and depending on how that goes, I may start archive guides and/or FAQs for some other articles, including possibly this one. These pages should really be cooperative efforts among the editors of the respective pages. I suppose anyone can start a FAQ at Talk:Che Guevara/FAQ.

Re "Does anyone object? And if so Why?" I think the featured article reviewers want to see not just one number ("several hundred") of executions mentioned; they want to see more than one number mentioned in the article, with discussion of the reliability of the various numbers presented in the article. For example, perhaps it could say right in the article, "Rodriguez claimed that Che admitted to 1500 executions, ^{[citation needed]} but this information does not appear in his memoirs and was not mentioned in an interview with Castaneda." ^{[citation needed]} If many people have heard elsewhere of the "thousands" figure, then including a statement like this in the article may help make the article more credible. On the other hand, maybe the 1500 figure is "fringe" and doesn't deserve to be mentioned. If so, perhaps more could be said about the other estimates: similar to a summary in about 2 or 3 sentences of your analysis above, of the numbers. I think it would be interesting, for example, to mention an estimate of the number of executions country-wide, since this helps put in perspective both the numbers killed by Batista and the number of executions overseen by Guevara. Just saying "several hundred" and giving a footnote won't sound very credible to readers who have heard of the "thousands" figure and who don't have the time and energy to read the references. At least, perhaps a footnote can contain some quotes from sources to help establish the credibility of the figure.

If you would like to compose a paragraph to be considered for addition to the article, taking into account some of the comments that have been made, I encourage you to go ahead. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copper, the peer review process (as it relates to this discussion), is basically a review of a book by an academic journal entailing scholars from the related fields. An author can submit his work for review and scrutiny in order to add credibility to their research findings. It then allows those professors and academics in the field to judge the accuracy, validity, credibility etc of the research. As for these 3 main biographies they have been peer reviewed by scholars several times. Unfortunately to gain access to most of these archived reviews one would need to have access to a JSTOR database of academic journals at a University (which I have). I would be willing to download such articles and email them to anyone without access, if someone wishes to have a particular issue. Some examples are:

Matilde Zimmermann. Latin American Research Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (1999), pp. 197-208 Published by: The Latin American Studies Association

Philip Chrimes. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 74, No. 2 (Apr., 1998). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs

John Mason Hart. The American Historical Review, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 615-616. Published by: American Historical Association

etc etc – there are many ... and anyone with access to JSTOR can simply do a keyword search and find them all.

To the matter of numbers, I agree with your contention that the article could use a variety of numbers and include a detailed and referenced footnote of the differing figures. I will work on something to that effect, and have it reviewed here first before including it. I also agree with the idea of eventually creating a FAQ for this article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau and Coppertwig, first of all, thank you for a lengthy answer and sorry for taking so long to reply back. Some thoughts:

1) Now I can have a better sense of what other sources have to say about the incident. Thanks for providing me other perspectives from notable sources about the La Cabana & Executions. As this is a controversial topic, I agree with you that it deserves a separate article, where you can provide more lengthy explanations about the numbers of those executed and the rationale for it. Having said that, I still think the paragraph the way is written in this article seems partial, as it is providing only one side of the debate. However, it may be adequate if the weighted opinion of reliable sources agree with the rationale you presented. I need to check the sources once I have access to the books (probably February). Only then I can say (IMO) if the weight is adequate or not. Until then, I trust on your judgment.

2) I checked some reviews of the Anderson biography published in peer-reviewed history academic journals, and I think they can provide enough information that they are credible. One of the reviews, for example, was written by a Harvard professor, Kenneth Maxwell, who used to be the Director of Brazil Studies at Harvard and a member of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. If his credentials do not satisfy, I can personally attest that he is neutral as I know him, but probably my opinion does not count. ;-) I volunteer myself to write a separate article about the biographies. What do you guys think? I will probably need some help in revising my grammar and style, as English is not my native language, and hence my prose is not that good.

3) I like the idea of the FAQ.

4) I don't know if you noticed, but I am a new editor, so I am still learning about it. Hope you all be patient and don't mind about it. Editor br (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor br, it is great to have an additional editor interested in conducting research (I am happy to have & welcome your participation). I agree with your contention that the paragraph could include a more nuanced view and will thus work on something for review here on the talk page. I also second your contention on the peer review in relation to these books. As for the language issue, no worries, I would be more than willing to assist in proof-reading your additions if you would like. To the matter of separate articles for the books, I believe that is a great idea – but would first recommend adding a separate section to the articles on the 3 authors themselves. Then once you have enough information, move it into a separate article. Since you are a new editor, feel free to ask any questions you may have about the process end of things and Copper and I will be glad to assist you (for the record Copper is much more knowledgeable than me on such Wiki-matters and should be a first choice).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 09:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau: thank you very much for the explanation about peer review and the references. Within a few weeks I might go somewhere where I can access JSTOR. Would you please be a little more specific about the keyword search: is that a search within JSTOR, or where? What keywords would you suggest? (indented 3 colons because replying to Redthoreau's previous post which was indented with 2 colons; see Wikipedia:Talk page#This is easy to read) ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the Legacy section reads "Moreover, Guevara has ironically been subsumed by the capitalist consumer culture he despised. "

I think this is an extremely subjective statement and even reads as if it's someone's opinion rather than a objective fact. It assumes (without supporting evidence) people who display items bearing either his image or message do so without any knowledge of him or support of his ideology, which I really don't think is the case; rather everyone I have ever met sporting such a t-shirt or bedroom poster strongly supports him and his ideology.

Looking at the article's history, it seems this line has been deleted many times but keeps being added by contributors also making strong criticisms against the man and/or other socialist/communist articles. This leads me to believe its inclusion is more of a political attempt to dissuade people from wearing t-shirts bearing his image rather than to express a factual statement. Tachy99 (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tachy, welcome to the article. First to clarify, this particular sentence has never been deleted and then reinserted. There also has never been any voiced objection to it before now (that is not to say that your concern may not be valid however). I am not sure which editors you are referring to as "making strong criticisms against socialist/communist articles", but I don't believe that description would match either Copper or myself (the 2 primary editors at this time). No lines in the article should be an attempt to convince or "dissuade" people's actions, and it is regrettable that you interpret it as such. In my perspective the sentence is referencing the merchandizing phenomenon wherein Che's stencil image is used to sell every product imaginable. This has been the subject of many news articles, and even a recent documentary Chevolution. Moreover, a simple search of EBay under "Che Guevara" will leave you nearly 1,000 different consumer items. There is additional information in the Wiki article Che Guevara in popular culture which I feel may be helpful to you in gauging the validity of this issue. Now would Che Guevara condone or agree with such a trend? Well Wikipedia is not for editor speculation, but his statements with regard to consumerism, and belief in the Marxist concept of commodity fetishism, has led published commentators to assume he wouldn't support it. Of note, I don't believe that the article at present condemns or passes judgment on those who choose to wear a Che t-shirt etc, but acknowledge that you may have read it that way (or that it may be written that way to others). ----> With that in mind, how do you propose the sentence should read to prevent this? In your view should it be removed, adjusted, rephrased? Are there any references you would like to include to counter this perceived bias? I am open, as I believe all the involved editors here are, to your considerations. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tachy99 that the "subsumed" statement is opinion, not fact. I suggest changing this part:

"Moreover, Guevara has ironically been subsumed by the capitalist consumer culture he despised. The primary vehicle of this phenomenon has been a high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face, which has become one of the world's most universally merchandized images,^[1][2] found on an endless array of items including: t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis.^[3] Yet, Guevara also remains an iconic figure both in specifically political contexts^[4] and as a wide-ranging popular icon of youthful rebellion.^[5]"

to this:

"A high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face has become one of the world's most universally merchandized images,^[6][7] found on an endless array of items including: t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis,^[8] ironically contributing to the consumer culture he despised. Yet, Guevara also remains an iconic figure both in specifically political contexts^[9] and as a wide-ranging popular icon of youthful rebellion.^[5]"

although I think that's only a little better and could perhaps be further improved. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copper, I would agree with your proposed changes. Hopefully Tachy will also take time to respond, so we can ensure that he/she is also content with the adjustment.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would agree the proposed change sounds a lot more factual than what is written currently. I understand the point being made, I just think its phrased in a very opinionated way, so changing it to that proposed by Coppertwig would certainly be an improvement.

In regards to the edits, I cannot find specific reference (although I do not really understand how to use history properly), and so may have gotten confused with various other statements which have been repeatedly added and removed in the past (admitedly, quite some time ago it seems). Regards, Tachy99 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some "criticisms" of the article, which I will assume was mainly written by Red.

Quote: Following the Cuban revolution, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted as war criminals during the revolutionary tribunals, ratifying sentences which in some cases utilized firing squads.

"Convicted...war criminals" who are "sentenced with firing squads" implies that there were certain persons who violated just war conventions, such as the Geneva conventions who were prosecuted and convicted in proper military tribunals and executed when found guilty. This, from everything I have heard and read, is not what happened in this instance. I would have rephrased it thusly.

After the Cuban Revolution, the Castro government rounded up several officials of the deposed Bautista Regime, as well as dissidents and perceived political threats, and subsequently summoned them to appear before tribunals over which Che Guevara presided. In the event of a guilty verdict the prisoners were promptly executed by firing squads also managed by Che Guevara. As there is next to no record of Guevara ever issuing a verdict other than guilty and as no credible defense was afforded to the accused, these trials are understood to have been show-trials, and the executions political murders. Both the show trials and the executions were ceremonial, and often televised. Overall, the first three years of the Castro regime saw 2,400 documented political executions--though scholars suspect a significant amount of undocumented cases--and over 300,000 political prisoners, which amounts to a ratio of one prisoner for every 18 Cuban residents, a higher ratio than the Soviet Union ever had, even during the Stalinist purges.

Here's another: Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, politician, author, physician, military theorist, and guerrilla leader. After death, his stylized image became a ubiquitous countercultural symbol worldwide.

Che never held a political office, admitted never to have formally acquired a medical degree, and never won a guerrilla battle. Che did however, spend a good chunk of his time as an executioner. Let's thus rephrase for accuracy:

Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, author, executioner, and guerrilla fighter. After death, his stylized image became a countercultural symbol worldwide, in spite of his well documented murders of civilians that by his own admission ran well past 2,000 in number.

Or this: Both notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors and revered by supporters for his rigid dedication to professed doctrines, Guevara remains an admired, controversial, and significant historical figure. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a "new man" driven by "moral" rather than "material" incentives Guevara evolved into a quintessential icon of leftist-inspired movements.

could easily be changed to this:

Che was a fanatical ideologue whose paranoia drove him to unhesitatingly shoot defectors. Because of this, he is either loathed or unnoticed by much of the world, but nonetheless remains admired amongst certain segments of the global Left who see him as an icon of defiance and a martyr for his cause, and who are enthralled by a famously photogenic pose he struck for Alberto Korda, which is considered the most famous photograph in the world.

None of the facts change. The current interpretation of a ruthless disciplinarian who shoots people who step out of line is changed to a paranoid maniac who shoots people who step out of line. Given what we know about his personal death toll, what seems to be the better evaluation?

The Jon Lee Anderson bio has taken a lot of criticism for being a fawning puff piece and using as its principle source one of Che's Communist prosecutors himself, Orlando Borrego, who to this day remains a functionary in the Castro government. As a counterweight, I included sources such as the Cuba Archive Project, the book Ernesto Che Guevara, Mito y Realidad (in Spanish)by Enrique Ros, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, and the work of the maligned, but nonetheless surprisingly scrupulous Humberto Fontova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tintindeo82: I see that you're concerned about "convicted as war criminals" as implying that the people actually were war criminals. I think it allows the reader to decide whether to agree with such convictions, but perhaps the wording could be changed somehow. It would help to find a reliable source stating that they were not war criminals – does one of the sources you mention above do that or something similar? In some other places I think the wording needs to be changed, e.g. "accomplices" sounds too negative, and I've just changed "murdered" to "killed".

I think some of your suggestions are too anti-Che and some I'm not convinced are verifiable facts.

Re this passage:

" Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against those considered to be traitors, chivatos or war criminals.^[10] Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted during the revolutionary tribunal process.^[11] On some occasions the penalty delivered by the tribunal was death by firing squad.^[12] Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands.^[13] With 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been killed at the hands of Batista's accomplices,^[14] and a survey at the time showing 93% public approval for the tribunal process,^[15] the newly empowered Cuban government along with Guevara concurred. Although the exact numbers differ, it is estimated that several hundred people were executed during this time.^[16]"

I suggest changing the last 3 sentences "Raul ... during this time" to "Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, expressed a concern that the public might take justice into their own hands as a result of 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been killed by people working for Batista. The new government, including Che, concurred, and tribunals were set up, for which a survey at the time showed 93% public support." The main advantage of this change is to remove the word "justified", thus putting less emphasis on the revolutionary government POV. Perhaps these sentences need to be moved to earlier in the paragraph to make it more chronological. I would appreciate it if someone would check whether this suggestion is in accord with the sources. I found my copy of Anderson but it doesn't have Treto in the index; I can get the Treto source from JSTOR but it may take me weeks to get around to it.

If someone can find a reliable source that expresses a different POV about the tribunals themselves or about the accuracy of the survey, it would be good to add those POVs to the text, e.g. after the sentence mentioning Nuremburg, another sentence reporting some other POV from a reliable source.

I don't remember seeing a source saying that Che presided over the tribunals, as opposed to reviewing the written records of evidence and convictions which had been made by other people acting as judges. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tintindeo82, I am aware of the potential futility in discussing point of view matters, however there are many factual inaccuracies in your remarks, to say nothing of the extreme POV and hyperbolic language. I will do my best to respond to your criticisms in their chronological order.     (1) I would not classify the article as “mainly written by me” and would even contend that upwards of 80 % of all the words were inserted from other editors.     (2) “War Criminal” is not a phrase that belongs solely to the practice of disobeying the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, Guevara did not as you contend “preside” over any revolutionary tribunals. They were panels of 3 judges and held all over the country in several areas. For those held at La Cabana, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those found guilty during the tribunal process. As Castaneda notes, the degree to which Guevara enjoyed this process is not definitive, and there are reports which Castaneda notes of how he did pardon cases of those found guilty. Taibo goes further and notes how Guevara reviewed cases that did not deliver death sentences, although Anderson notes 55 cases where Borrego and Guevara made the final call on whether to deliver a pardon at La Cabana.     (3) To your claim of “no credible defense being afforded” to the guilty, this is also a disputed issue. Although all sources agree that defense counsel was provided, the degree of their competency or effectiveness yes is disputed. For your claim of them thus being “political murders” (although I guess philosophically many would argue all capital punishment is “murder”), none of the 3 main Guevara biographers use such a term, nor do about 50 of the 54 books/biographies dealing with Guevara’s life. See WP:UNDUE. If that was the term commonly used, then of course that is how it would be reported in the article. To the issue of “show trials”, I am ok with mentioning sourced remarks about how Guevara critics describe the trials as “show trials” or “Kangaroo courts” etc, if we also include the other sourced view that they were not.     (4) What is your source for the firing squads “often being televised”? There is only one known case of a televised firing squad execution that I am aware of ... that of Batista chief of police in Santa Clara, Col. Cornelio Rojas. (Do you know of any others?)     (5) What is your source for 2,400 “documented” political executions? As stated above, there are many different numbers for those killed under Guevara’s command, and nationwide. Also what years are these over? As it would not be relevant to attribute executions that took place while Guevara was no longer in power in Cuba, or deceased.     (6) In relation to 300,000 political prisoners, that number is used often by Fontova, but never in many of the more mainstream sources. Furthermore, if true, that would probably be more relevant to an article on human rights in Cuba, or maybe Fidel Castro’s article (who would have had the final say on such matters).     (7) “Che NEVER had a political office” = Huh? It is irrefutable that Che served as Cuban minister of industry and president of Cubas national bank. This is recognized by every source, regardless of political ideology.     (8) “Never formerly required a medical degree” = Often repeated by critics, however untrue, a copy of Guevara’s medical school transcript can be found [pg 75] of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer. I can also look you up an additional source for a copy of his medical diploma if you would like.     (9) “Never won a guerrilla battle” = Once again, often repeated, however contradicted by a mountain of evidence. Leaving aside the The Battle of Santa Clara (and yes I am aware that Fontova creates an alternate reality where there were under 10 casualties) the forces pitted 300 of Guevara’s men against 3,000 of Batista’s troops and is recognized as a battle, it is also irrefutable that Guevara killed 30 Bolivian soldiers in ambushes before losing his first casualty in Bolivia – See Henry Butterfield Ryan.     (10) “Great deal of his time as an executioner” = There are roughly 10-15 documented cases of individuals who Che personally executed. As for his time at La Cabana, all sides agree that it only lasted 6 months. Thus most of Che's time, irregardless of the death toll, was NOT spent as an executioner.     (11) It is disputed that Guevara ever “admitted” to well past 2,000 executions. As noted by Castaneda, CIA agent Felix Rodriguez claims that before his own execution Che admitted to such a figure, despite the fact that Felix did not report this matter in his personal CIA report of the incident, his personal memoirs, or in a personal interview with Castaneda himself. There is also contradicting evidence of whether Felix ever even met with Guevara, some evidence that his photo with Guevara could have been doctored (see the German documentary 'Schnappschuss mit Che' (Snapshot with Che) by journalist Wilfried Huismann News Story), and Felix still to this day wears Guevara’s watch as a personal “trophy”. I would imagine that any reported confessions by Guevara of a man before his own execution would be branded unreliable, however in this instance you are ok with taking the word of the man who relayed his execution order, on what some of those last words may have been. I think you would agree that they should at least be taken with a grain of salt.     (12) “Anderson has taken criticism” = He may have received such criticism by hyper partisans, however his work has received praise from: The New Yorker, The Economist, Newsday, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Publishers Weekly, The Sunday Times, Foreign Affairs, Book List, The Kansas City Star, San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, The Independent, The New York Review of Books, The Denver Post, Latin Trade, Kirkus Reviews, The New York Press, The Guardian, The Times of London, Literary Review, Harpers, The Philadelphia Enquirer, The Boston Book Review, and The Boston Globe. Hardly bastions of Marxist thought, nor on the payroll for Fidel Castro the last time I checked.     (13) Per your accusation that Anderson used Orlando Borrego as a “principle source” what is your source for that? Anderson spent 5 years traversing Cuba, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mexico, The United Kingdom, Moscow, Washington D.C., and yes Miami (where he consulted Cuban exiles including CIA agent Felix Rodriguez).     (14) Your “counterweights” (all of which I have read) are an activist website, and books published for the specific purpose of attacking/criticizing Guevara. Llosa’s “book” is really a few page web essay (written for his think tank) with very little sourcing. As for Humberto Fontova being “scrupulous”, the only thing “scrupulous” with his tirades/screeds are that they are riddled with colorful over the top hyperbole, unverifiable events whose only source is himself, and irrelevant straw men. His “research” is filled with immature vernacular, written in an almost Gonzo style (which I enjoy, but not for an Encyclopedia).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality here can be a problem. The thing is that one must understand is the "nature of the controversy" over Che. This article is a decent starting place in addition to the other sources I cited (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece) that detail what Guevara really was.

All political murderers claim that their victims were traitors or "human rights violators" of some kind to disguise that they were really political opponents or simply extortion killings. Many on the Left still justify (and glorify) this one particular mass murderer because he had a photogenic angle and because they still love the Communist dream.

The issue with this article is global. This article says Che Guevara was a legitimate insurgent and freedom fighter. The truth is that there was nothing legitimate about Che Guevara, and that he was just another authoritarian/totalitarian killer. You are not going to neutralize these perspectives anymore than you can neutralize a pro-Hitler POV with an anti-Hitler POV. As long as a Che partisain can use the Anderson Puff Piece to deny the reliability of sources contradicting him, the best you can do is put a pro angle and a con angle, which is what I suggest. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article says that he was a "legitimate insurgent and freedom fighter". If it does, that should be removed. Perhaps you mean that the article implies that. If so, that implication should also be removed. You say, "The truth is that there was nothing legitimate about Che Guevara and that he was just another authoritarian/totalitarian killer"; that seems to be an opinion, not the type of thing that could be verified as fact, and as such should not be stated or implied in the article. Calling the Anderson biography a "puff piece" doesn't convince me that it isn't a reliable source. Do you have any good arguments that it's not a reliable source? If other equally reliable sources contradict it, we can report both angles. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tintindeo, speaking of neutrality see WP:NPOV & WP:MORALIZE, as your suggested revisions violate nearly every aspect of this foundational wiki policy. In addition, this article does not state that Guevara was a "legitimate insurgent" or a "freedom fighter" which is part of wiki's WP:Words to Avoid. If it did I would remove such claims myself, as they have no place in an encyclopedia. As for most of your other statements, they are your opinions (of which you have the right to bear) & I would personally defend your right to carry those views (irregardless of my view on their factual credibility) ... however this article is not your personal blog for you to mention all of the aspects you dislike about Guevara. We are merely here to document the verifiable (WP:VERIFY) views of WP:RELIABLE sources on the issue, providing the correct WP:WEIGHT and listing them as impartially as possible. Your practice of dismissing carte blanche the work (Anderson's) recognized by most sources as the definitive English resource on the matter as "fluff", nearly ensures that you will always be displeased with this article (and even the Che Spanish language article for that matter, which recognizes Anderson's findings). Furthermore, it is not just Anderson, I am sure that you also would dismiss Castaneda, and Taibo II as "fluff" as well ... including probably 95 % of all Guevara biographies in print. Now there are places on the internet for your pov ruminations, but wikipedia is unfortunately not one of them.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given my sources. The Hidden Face of Che by Jacobo Machover This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece The Cuba Archive Project Anything by Humberto Fontova. (He is stridently anti-Communist and anti-Che; but his facts are good.) Ernesto Che Guevara, Mito y Realidad (in Spanish)by Enrique Ros, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa,

As for bias in the article, here's one example.

Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against those considered to be traitors, chivatos or war criminals. (Well, were they traitors, or were they mostly innocent? How exactly was a "traitor" defined? What were some of Che's own words on the subject?) Serving in the post as commander of La Cabaña, Guevara reviewed the appeals of those convicted during the revolutionary tribunal process. On some (How many? What proportion?) occasions the penalty delivered by the tribunal was death by firing squad. Raúl Gómez Treto, senior legal advisor to the Cuban Ministry of Justice, considered removing restrictions on the death penalty to be justified in order to prevent citizens themselves from taking justice into their own hands. (Interesting. Who might have considered it unjustified?) With 20,000 Cubans estimated to have been killed at the hands of Batista's accomplices, (This is simply a grotesque People's Weekly World style lie. Even the most anti-Batista periodicals of the day placed the number at less than 1,000.) publications and a survey at the time showing 93% public approval for the tribunal process, (How trustworthy is this survey that is being conducted by a government that we already see is engaged in large scale political executions?) the newly empowered Cuban government along with Guevara concurred. Although the exact numbers differ, it is estimated that several hundred people were executed during this time.

This entire section reads like an apology for the wave of executions. It takes great pains to mention 5 separate rationalizations for the executions (that the victims were "considered to be traitors", that they were given trial and only "some" were killed, that the restrictions on the death penalty were "eased" for benign reasons, repeating the lie that Bautista killed 20,000 people (implying that it's "no big deal to kill 2,000), and the 93% approval rating cited by the Cuban Ministry of Justice of all places!) while not mentioning anything reflecting poorly on Che, such as how the executions were televised, and how the trials were farces, not to mention some of Che's more colorful statements on the subject, such as:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We execute from revolutionary conviction!" Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

I could cite examples such as these in every paragraph. Please commission someone else to rewrite this article from scratch. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tintindeo, once again it is your personal point of view that the paragraph reads like an "apology". It is not my intention, nor should it be of any editor, to "excuse" the executions after the revolutionary tribunals. As I have said, I am open to including some differing views on the matter, which already exist in the utilized sources (not the poorly sourced editorialized essays and WP:FRINGE hit-pieces you would like to use). You can find a litany of web articles by Googling 'Che + Murderer', 'Che + Killer' etc, but that does not make them worthy of being used for an Encyclopedia. In reference to such, here is Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Che Guevara which I would add reads similarly to this wiki one, and even more favorably in many respects. As for your quote, yes it is indicative of Guevara's view on the executions, however Che (as most people) was a complex individual with many self conflicting views on an array of things. I wonder what your view would be on including some of Guevara's other verified statements like:

:: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine."

:: "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth. Far more important than a good remuneration is the pride of serving one's neighbor."

:: "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 .... We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force."

:: "Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary."

I am ok with including any verifiable statement by Guevara (in its proper context), but with respect to WP:UNDUE there are 5 "fluff" (to use your designation) quotes which may show Guevara in a positive light, for every negative one. Many of those sources you cite take great effort to cherry pick many of Guevara's less flattering statements, but ignore those which could be interpreted more positively (this is what seperates them from biographers like Anderson, Castaneda, Taibo etc who report all aspects of his life, both pro & con).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red my friend, don't take this the wrong way; just please note that I am not addressing you in my comments. You and yours have an MO. Any source critical of Che Guevara is "fringe". Any source worshipful of him is "reliable". It is unfortunate that so many have gotten conned by the Castroist/French Communist publicity machine that generally reliable sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica continue to lionize him. I'll remind you that Walter Durante of the New York Times was taken in hook, line, and sinker for Joseph Stalin and proceeded to run a full blown propaganda campaign for him in the NYT. I'll also alert you to how Herbert Matthews wrote glowingly of the revolution, assuring the public that Castro was not a Communist. There is a large contingent on the not-yet-fringe-Left that considers Che to be legit. which unfortunately seeps into sources that are not usually this wrong.

The fact remains that there are other reliable sources that are NOT fringe and that are critical, and you can't dismiss them. It is also true that the Anderson book will eventually be exposed as a monumental snow job. The fact also remains that you have yet to justify the two paragraphs I mentioned in which Che's brutality was rationalized while no fact reflecting poorly on Che was mentioned. The fact also remains that you have yet to explain why Che should be treated in a manner different from Pinochet, who is given much harsher treatment despite far bettor records on economics AND civil rights than Che and Castro; (this is a comparison between the two, not a defense of Pinochet). Quite frankly, Stalin is a much more apt parallel to Guevara than Pinochet. The fact remains that the 20,000 figure for Batista's victims is a lie that is invisible outside of Communist literature. The article as it stands is obviously biased in the extreme, so before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

But again, I'm not addressing you; I don't address apologists for mass murderers who happen to be Communists who are not yet--though soon will be--as discredited as Stalin is. I am asking a responsible editor to either provide a perspective to balance yours or to get someone else to write the article and insist that you recuse yourself. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.249.136.18 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 64.249.136.18. Anyone, including yourself, is welcome to refer to reliable sources and suggest changes to the article. It would be helpful if you would mention the sources more critical of Guevara which you consider reliable, and explain why you consider them reliable. What do you think of the biographies by Taibo and Castaneda? I've also replied here at your talk page. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 64, who I believe is also Tintindeo (correct me if I am mistaken) ... the only modus operandi I have at this time is to follow wiki policies and prevent the article from turning into an unreliable editorial screed from Che-Sucks.com or a treatise from Saint-Che.com. I am aware that both sides have entrenched and impassioned positions, and that there is often time a parallel relationship between the degree of information an individual has on Che’s full life, and how strongly they feel about him. To some of your criticisms,      (1) None of the sources we utilize are “French” (not that such a fact would be a negative thing), and at Wiki we are only here to report the current reality – not to change it. Thus when Encyclopedia Britannica and other scholarly sources begin to ‘revise’ the life of Che, then Wikipedia will follow suit ... but not before. I understand your claim that all of society has been “duped”, however Wikipedia is not the place to counteract such a ‘phenomenon’. Even if as you say there was a elaborate conspiracy to hide the 'real facts' on Che and trick 90 % of the Western Media to tow the Castro line, Wikipedia would not be the place to counter this practice, and the article would follow suit with the 'duped' until they were no longer in the majority and most reliable sources.      (2) Of course there are critical sources of Guevara that are not WP:FRINGE. Additionally, the 3 main biographies (including Anderson) contain a litany of critical assertions (that could be still be included) – have you read Anderson’s work? Or do you just ‘assume’ it is a “snow job”? An additional source that contains critical information would be Leo Sauvage’s - Che Guevara: The Failure of a Revolutionary (1973), which compiles critical information, but does so in a scholarly and well sourced tone - and not as an editorial rant advocating a position (like many of the more recent Anti-Che screeds you cite).      (3) I am unsure why you feel that Pinochet is an apt comparison. Ignoring the fact that Wiki does not work that way (by comparing pages), I don’t find them to be analogous in a myriad of ways. If I told you to compare Che’s page to Simón Bolívar, Toussaint L'Overture, John Brown, or even Ronald Reagan (beloved by the American right, loathed by the global left) etc ... I am sure you would dismiss the analogy and respond with Pol Pot, Stalin, or Vlad The Impaler (seeing that you’ve already used Hitler as well). The method of historical negationism often applied to Che could be used on any historical figure, along with the impartial language you would like to see utilized. For example, I am sure that if Thomas Jefferson’s page began by describing (smearing) him as a "racist slave owning possible rapist" (Sally Hemings), it would be ‘technically true’ to some, but not a proper introduction for an Encyclopedia article on him, nor a way that any mainstream source would describe his life.      (4) In reference to the 20,000 deaths being "a lie" (as you claim), that figure exists in scores of sources from the time period and many written in the current day. Despite this, I am open to what cited evidence you have that the figure is false. Taibo’s biography (which uses the figure) would also not be described as “communist literature”.      (5) Lastly, I will not be recusing myself, simply because you resent my practice of ensuring that the article represents the majority of mainstream sources. There are many places on the internet for you to revile Che till your heart is content, and you will even find an echo chamber of agreement in many outlets, however an Encyclopedia is not the place to ‘revise’ the existing historical record. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have no idea what IP64 is.

It's hard to take seriously these exhortations to name sources when I have done so on 2 separate occasions. I shall do so again. The Hidden Face of Che by Jacobo Machover This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461399.ece The Cuba Archive Project Anything by Humberto Fontova. (He is stridently anti-Communist and anti-Che; but his facts are good.) Ernesto Che Guevara, Mito y Realidad (in Spanish)by Enrique Ros, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa,

One of these sources is the Times of London, which hopefully on par with the NYT and Britannica. I cite the others as reliable because I approve of their methodologies, and some have been given good press by generally accepted reliable sources. Fontova has a voice-in-the-wilderness quality to him, but his facts are good, he has also been given press, and he should not be ignored. None of these are "recent anti-Che screeds"; and only Fontova comes close to a "screed" in his tone; and I wish he wouldn't because all it does is obscure that his facts and methodology are reliable. As for me thinking that "That is because you were all taken in...by that verdampter [Castro] Propaganda", I said no such thing. There are a lot of media people who understand who Guevara really was; unfortunately, there are also several caught in the Castro hype. Anderson will eventually be seen as Walter Durante II.

I am sure that if Thomas Jefferson’s page began by describing (smearing) him as a "racist slave owning possible rapist" (Sally Hemings), it would be ‘technically true’ to some, but not a proper introduction for an Encyclopedia article on him, nor a way that any mainstream source would describe his life.

Good point. It is for precisely the same reasons (except for the lack of substantiation--as far as I know--for the Jefferson rape allegation) that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Che are properly described in an encyclopedia for what they primarily were: totalitarian killers. The analogy between Che and the first three is not quite apt, because the first three were real politicians, while Che was mainly an executioner whose victims were often brought to him pre-gagged and bound.

In other words, imagine, Red, that someone came to a Hitler discussion protesting that there weren't enough positive things on Hitler's page, and that there should be some balance in the article reflecting Hitler's point of view and putting Hitler's policies in a more positive light. (Substitute Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or anyone else if you don't wish to tread on Goodwin territory.) What would you think of this person's contributions? Well, Red, my estimation of your contributions is the same as your estimation of those of this hypothetical person's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "IP64": Please log in to Wikipedia with a username so that it's easier for us to tell whether we're talking to one person or several different people. If you click on the "history" tab at the top of this talk page, you can see that some of the edits to this talk page have been credited not to usernames of any logged-in users, but to IP addresses such as "64.249.136.18" and "68.197.236.146". Perhaps you're using dynamic IP, so your comments don't always come in from the same IP address. Redthoreau was using "IP64" as an abbreviation for "64.249.136.18", which is, in effect, the account name that one of the comments was posted under. It also helps if you sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Your statement that Che was "primarily" a "totalitarian killer" is your own opinion. I don't see this view reflected in the biographies I've read. Leaders of many countries are responsible for deaths in wars and executions (where they have the right to pardon or veto the execution); we don't necesssarily portray them as primarily killers. Wikipedia articles, according to the neutral point-of-view policy, are supposed to present the views that are shown in the reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Wikipedian editors.

Redthoreau said Fontova's book was not peer-reviewed (See links below).

Re reliability of Fontova: see Redthoreau's comments at Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 14#Humberto Fontova and Che not needing proof to execute and Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 18#Comments. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 68/64/Tintindeo (all same person) ...

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

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

To your comments --- (A) “Naming a source” is more than simply stating the name of a book. A good place to start would be to give a page # and passage in context of a desired revision, accompanied with the source note from the book, of where that author derived the aforementioned information. That way the claim can be weighed against the 3 main biographies and other sources on Guevara's life WP:UNDUE . (B) Your Times Online article is merely a description of the authors motivation for writing the book. It does not address the actual claims within, as a peer-reviewed academic journal article would. Have you read the book itself, what are some of its main claims and sources? Moreover, the 3 main Che biographies have all been peer-reviewed by scholars in the field numerous times … your desired sources have not. (C) The Cuba Archive Project is a web based advocacy group, with most of their work still unpublished, and likewise free of academic review. (D) Humberto Fontova is the epitome of a WP:POV / WP:Fringe source, who writes in a bombastically polemic style, and often times cites himself for a litany of revisionist and conspiratorial claims. His editorialized (hardly ever sourced) hyperbolic diatribes (where he calls people "dingbats", "moonbats", "useful idiots", "imbeciles", "morons", "boobs" etc) are written solely on hyper-partisan websites, for the purpose of attacking Guevara, and explicitly exclude all information and context to the contrary. (E) If Anderson is ever viewed as ”Durante II” then Wikipedia will have to reassess him as a primary source. However at this time, his work remains the definitive, and most widely acclaimed biography on Guevara which was even endorsed for a documentary by the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Marxism). (F) Che is not “primarily described as a “totalitarian killer” as I have shown with the Britannica link. This descriptive view is your opinion, and not the majority view of authors, experts, mainstream news outlets, or scholars who have written on the subject. If it ever becomes so, then you will have a justifiable claim, however as it stands now, you do not. (G) if you wish to be taken seriously… I would recommend relinquishing the Reductio ad Hitlerum’s.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the History Channel is a "reliable source of info. then there is no need to proceed.Again, there are several people who understand Anderson to be a dupe; and this will be revealed in a few years. Concerning the praise Anderson received from all those bastions of Journalism you mention, the question becomes, from which contributors? Ignorant Che fetishists are all over the media.If you don't like Fontova, (and I wish he would tone down the invective, because it does only hurt him) I've given you plenty of other guys. The passages are coming shortly. Regarding Britannica, it represents the adage that all institutions are vulnerable to Left-Wing bias, particularly with a subject like Ché, that arouses the interests only of Castro fetishists and Cuban exiles; and for some reason, the Castro fetishists, despite never having seen anything, are more highly regarded in the academy. The academy seems to simply disregard the Cuban exile community that has lost their country. (Perhaps they regard them as an embittered oppressor class.) Anyway, Britannica got this one wildly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintindeo82 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tintindeo, to begin I have removed your personal attack against me, and would encourage you to review the Wiki policy of WP:NPA. To your comments. (1) Nowhere in the article is The History Channel used as a source, my rationale for bringing it up was to display to you that Anderson’s book was acknowledged by them (along with nearly everyone else) to be the authoritative source on the matter. I’ll let others decide if The History Channel is more credible than an anonymous wiki user, who apparently thinks 90 % of the world are “dupes”. (2) I’ve taken note that you used the word “several” in relation to those who find Anderson to in your words “be a dupe”. That is probably correct; however the vast overwhelming majority find him to be one of the definitive sources on the topic. I can find you “several” people who think the earth is flat, or that George Bush is really a giant lizard ... however these WP:Fringe theories do not usually get a prominent placing (if any) on a primary Wikipedia article. (3) As for the “coming passages”, if they do not reflect the overall consensus of the major biographers or peer reviewed academic journals, or if they are littered with pov polemic hyperbole as some of your posts here have been, then you might as well save yourself the time and not bother to create them. Your time may be better spent writing a blog essay or perhaps you could write your own book entitled “Why scholars, biographers, and Britannica are all dupes and Castro fetishists, and why I’ve unearthed the truth on Che Guevara” ... or something to that effect.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to you and/or Coppertwig to "answer" every comment on this page. Please! Allow editors to have some conversations free of control. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, many of the above comments reflect a back and forth conversation/retort between me and Tintindeo etc. It obviously would be "up to me" to comment when someone addresses me. Nevertheless, even if they weren't, all editors are free to reply to any of the talk page comments that they choose. Sometimes a day or two will pass by before I even reply, and my responses are in no way intended to "control" anyone. If you have replies you would like to include to any future (or past) posters, I would encourage you to feel uninhibited in making them. Your opinion on the articles content is more than welcome here (as it is for all posters).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, there was a time when a variety of productive conversations occurred between multiple editors on this page as occurred on this page prior prior to the time all comments were had to be evaluated and judged by you and Coppertwig before they could remain. Many of my referenced additions were reverted. When the page returns to its vibrant normalcy representing a more balance representation of various points of view and not must the POV of you and Coppertwig, then true collaboration can occur. When long time productive editors of this page are willing to return, it will be because the aurora of the two of you controlling this page has been dispelled. Do you not wonder why no respectable editor is willing to get involved in editing this page? Why the long time editors that created the Che FA has fled? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Guzman states that he "took pity" and gave him my small bag of tobacco for his pipe,

This sentence should be verified against its source: "and gave him my small bag of tobacco" may actually be part of the quote. If it's not, the word "my" should be "a".--74.15.76.38 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 74, thanks. I have fixed this issue and checked the statement against the given source.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara was born on May 14 1928, in the city of Rosario. The june 14 is a falsified date. Che's mother asked a doctor to move the actual date one month forward so she can avoid a family scandal due to the fact her pregnancy happened before her actual marriage``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoar (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoar, this has been discussed in the past, with consensus being to keep the date as July 14 (although the article does make note of Anderson's reporting on the date actually being a month earlier).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Terán hesitated, then pulled the trigger of his semiautomatic rifle, hitting Guevara in the arms and legs."

In order for him to be hit in the arms and legs with one pull of the trigger it would have to be an automatic rifle not a semiautomatic rifle. He would have to repeatly pull the trigger to hit him more than once. You stated he "pulled the trigger" i assume this means once. This needs to be changed. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.56.74 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 68, I have fixed this issue, and ensured that the new wording remained consistent with the given source. Thanks for making note of it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that maybe this recent piece could be included in the article. I am a conservative and recognize the complexity of Che's legacy, and in fact can be embarassed at times by the hypocritical hysteria that goes into criticizing him.

From the American Conservative Magazine:

"Lincoln, Wilson and FDR–each of them was responsible for far more deaths and far more destruction than Che Guevara or any of a number of Arab nationalist figures ever was, but two important things separate them in the eyes of the general public: they did not personally kill anyone, and the causes for which their armies killed and destroyed are widely considered to be the just and right ones. That is to say, the exact same moralizing, or rather anti-moralizing, that the ends justify the means that Che used in rationalizing revolutionary violence is employed to praise and sanctify approved figures who authorized much larger slaughters for the “right reasons.” Not only have sympathetic, shoulder-shrugging, anti-moralizing stories been told about these men, but we have built large physical monuments to them (or at least to two of the three mentioned above), which is rather more troubling in its way than silly people who wear T-shirts or directors who minimize the moral failings of their main characters." 137.52.151.206 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 137, I am not sure what part of the above excerpt you believe should be included. Of note, I don't believe that the article at present accuses conservatives of "lacking nuance", although I guess one would assume (on ideological grounds) that most conservatives would not view Che favorably. I can't really comment on "hypocritical hysteria", nor would my own personal view be relevant, but if you have a reliable source (I guess this could be one) which addresses such a thing, we can look it over for possible inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, you do not have to control this page and monitor every comment and respond. Arghh! I can hardly breathe! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I do not consider replying to a fellow editors question, statement, or request as a form of "control" or "monitoring". Please WP:Assume Good Faith and realize that you (or anyone else for that matter) are also welcome to reply to such comments as well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advise anyone who is seriously interested in editing this page, consider that Coppertwig sets the conditions for editing this page. Redthoreau is in contact with Coppertwig and is coached on how to handle their mutual Che Guevara POV. I have complained about this because it does not take place on this page but is covert. Coppertwig says he is merely supporting civility by coaching Redthoreau on how to handled this page. As I have said to Coppertwig, what I object to is that this "coaching" is hidden. If you look back in the history of the talk pages, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1, you can see how after Redthoreau took over the article lost its FA status because of POV. See how the main editor of this page no longer edits it. Look at the edit patterns and the dates:[12] Polaris999 has not since last June, despite repeatedly being "invited" back by Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau. It is a shame but I do not think anything can be done about it, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is meant to be realistic advice to anyone who wants to edit this page. If anyone disagrees, then please comment here. It is worthwhile to remember that it was Jimmy Wales who put the POV tag on this article. He is the founder of Wikipedia. I am merely urging people to look at the data, look at the history on the talk page, look at the history of contributions, and make their own decision. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last item on the timeline is clearly biased. "1968 - Becomes the Greatest and most Admired person in the world" What? This isn't fact. Tuckerjohn (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckerjohn, it was the result of vandalism by a single IP user (76.185.176.82) on January 9. Unfortunately, I did not have the timeline page watch listed and thus never caught it (I do now). I have removed this as such a statement is as you said, "clearly biased", not to mention absurd. Thank you for pointing it out to us. Luckily it was not up there for long.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]