This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view Nomination, July 2004 and Nomination, September 2004 to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote the Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107100/), "Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims." If any other leader were to institute concentration camps, there would surely be comparisons to Hitler and Stalin. Why is there little to no mention of Che's atrocities. It seems that his cult status grants him immunity from these troubling facts.JianLi 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted Slate article is extremely right-wing POV orientated and uses distorted historical facts to support the authors views. Unless someone can find documented evidence to the contrary, I believe it would be incorrect to describe his implemented Labor camps as "concerntration camps" seeing as most reliable evidence shows them to have been far more like a standard prison system rather than anything like the Nazi or even Soviet style systems of extermination you refer to.

Even if the article is biased, there is no doubt that Che presided over the firing squads, in which political dissidents were summarily executed, and for which "standard prison system" is a gross misrepresentation. Here is a quote from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/970518.18canbyt.html): "Later, after Batista was vanquished, Che was put in charge of the revolutionary firing squads."JianLi 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Cut from article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

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

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

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

Here's one by a CURRENT moderator:

[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admins

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

Moderators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cut from article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is said in the article that it was a Rolex. -- Chris

Actually, it is probable that when he was killed, Che was wearing two Rolexes. And this is why: Fidel Castro has stated that, before Che and his fellow guerrillas departed from Cuba for Bolivia, he gave a gold Rolex watch to each of them. This was in keeping with a tradition he had established in the Sierra Maestra when he gave a Rolex to each of his associates who was promoted to Comandante, along with the small gold star which was the insignia of that rank. The main reason for giving the Rolexes was that it is necessary for a field commander to have a precision time piece because synchronicity is essential for military operations. Rolex was an obvious choice given its reputation for accuracy and reliability. So, one of the Rolexes that Che was wearing when he was captured in Bolivia was no doubt the one given to him by Fidel just prior to his departure from Cuba in October 1966.

The second Rolex he was wearing must have been the one that had belonged to his close friend, Tuma, who had fallen in combat and died in his arms on June 26, 1967. After he expired, Che took his Rolex and slipped it onto his own wrist with the intention of one day giving it to Tuma's newborn son in Cuba whom he had never seen.

Perhaps you are wondering what had become of the Rolex that Fidel had given Che when he was promoted to Comandante in the Sierra Maestra on July 22, 1958? That watch was one of his most prized possessions -- in fact, probably his only prized possession, given his general disdain for all things material (except books). His father, mother, sister Celia and brother Juan Martín came to visit him in Cuba shortly after the triumph of the revolution in January, 1959. This was the first time they had all seen each other in six years, and would be the last time Che would ever see his father. As they were saying goodbye in the Havana airport, Che's father took off his watch -- which was an antique pendant watch that originally had belonged to his late mother, Che's beloved grandmother Ana Lynch y Ortíz, that he had had converted into a man's wristwatch by a Buenos Aires jeweler -- and handed it to his son. Very moved, Che slipped off his own watch and pressed it into his father's hand, explaining that it had been given to him by Fidel at the time he was promoted to Comandante. His father treasured that watch always and wore it every day for the rest of his life. (He died in 1987.) Hope this helps to answer your question ... Polaris999 03:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quote is famous from a Times lead.

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

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

(from Wikiquote)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Mario Terán asked to be allowed to kill Che. "When I got there Che was sitting on a bench. When he saw me, he said "You have come to kill me" I didnt dare to shoot, and then the man said " Calm down, you are going to kill a man" Then I gave a step back, towards the door, I closed my eyes, and I fired the first burst. Che fell down with his legs torn, he twisted and started spilling a lot of blood. I recovered my temper and fired the second burst, wich hit him in the arm, a shoulder, and the hearth"" Paco Ignacio Taibo II, Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como El Che. First Ed. page 819. He is also quoted as having said "¡Tirá cobarde, que vas a matar a un hombre!" ("Shoot coward, For you are going to kill a man!" --David Chapa 07:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Wikipedia articles are not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"As for Fontova: I object to citing Fontova on Che Guevara for the same reason I would object to citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon. He is nothing like an authority, and there is plenty else to draw on that is not written in bile."

How about including in the article some of Che's quotes (including in "Motorcycle Diaries") that are more likely reveal why many consider him a bloody thirsty wacko? You link to some articles that quote them but this wikipedia article does not quote them itself:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006484

"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."

or

http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-10-13/movie.html

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl."

or

http://claremont.org/writings/050125custred.html

"Hatred is an element in the struggle," he said, "unbending hatred for the enemy which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations…."

"A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."

How about the fact that Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Guevara personally reported in "Yo Soy El Che!" that Che himself claimed to have sent over 1800 people to firing squads? I don't think it is just to underplay the reputation Che gained for cruelty or that he was an avowed Stalinist. One doesn't have to gush for Che for an article to be biased in his favor. Imagine doing a wiki article for Nixon and not mentioning the anti-Semitism and profanity on The Tapes. Or his paranoia. Or one that painted all his actions as necessary considering the virulence of his opponents.

If it seems too daunting a task, I'm willing to take the updates to the article.

JWynn | 07:15, October 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do think some material related to this belongs in the article, and I am much too busy myself to work on it. On the other hand, remember that Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. We don't just want large numbers of undigested, uncontextualized quotation. Polaris, you've clearly shown yourself to be pretty expert on the subject at hand, I'd be interested in hearing what you think. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jmabel, for asking for my thoughts about this. Over the past few weeks, I have been reading many of the wiki "Featured Articles" in the History and Politics categories, trying to see what makes an outstanding wiki article. Most of these FA's have all quotations placed in the Wikiquotes section. Way back when we first began work on the Che article, we did have a section called "Quotations" at the bottom and I had placed a number of quotes there, but someone later incorporated the entire section into Wikiquote. I am not sure that it would be my personal preference to have all quotations consigned to Wikiquote, but it appears that this is current wiki policy and I therefore favor following this standard. Polaris999 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris, the usual standard on this is that we shouldn't have a section that is just a list of quotations, but certainly if representative quotations from the subject of a biographical article can be woven into the narrative, that's fine. Imagine a biographical piece on Julius Caesar without Veni, vidi, vici, or one about Henry IV of France without Paris vaut bien une messe. Or of Castro without La historia me absolverá. Certainly none of these Che Guevara quotations are that emblematic, but if one of them could be worked into the narrative, it probably would be a good thing, because they do illustrate a side of Che that is shorted in the article. The rest can go to Wikiquote. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

01 September 2005

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

Note: Since no one else undertook to do this, I did it myself. Polaris999 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. What the heck is a "distant grandfather"? Should this be "ancestor"?
2. "Serna y LLosa": wouldn't normal capitalization be "Serna y Llosa"? Certainly the latter is how Mario Vargas Llosa spells it.
3. I notice the recent deletion of the following paragraph; the comment was "removed section that has no historical basis -- Che entered Havana on 3 Jan 1959". I'll assume that comment is factual, but certainly the claim that Castro may have viewed Che as a potentially dangerous and popular rival is widespread, and probably should be returned to the article with one or more citations for who has claimed this.

   "Fidel Castro may have viewed Che as a potentially dangerous and popular rival, so much so that Che was not present when Fidel triumphantly entered Havana on January 8. Che was sent with a separate rebel column to "capture" another major city for the rebels (for more on this see the book Diary of the Cuban Revolution)."

Jmabel | Talk 21:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest something like : Guevara was not present when Fidel triumphantly entered Havana on January 8, he was sent with a separate rebel column to capture another major city for the rebels. According to the book "Diary of the Cuban Revolution", Fidel Castro may have viewed Che as a potentially dangerous and popular rival. Ericd 21:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The decision that Che was to capture Santa Clara (the "major city" referred to above) was taken during the period 11-14 August 1958 and Castro made him the commander of a new column created for that express purpose. I really do not believe that at this point, when the war against Batista was waxing at full intensity, the decision that Che should lead the rebel column to Santa Clara was taken because Castro viewed him as a "potentially dangerous and popular rival". Presumably, Che was selected for this critical mission because Castro considered him to be the rebel leader best qualified to carry the Las Villas campaign to a successful conclusion.

Another point: As soon as he received the news that Batista had fled Cuba, Castro ordered Che to proceed to Havana and take control of the La Cabaña military fortress, which he did on 2 January 1959. Therefore, on Castro's orders, Che arrived in Havana six days before Castro himself did.

Regarding the complex relationship between Castro and Che and its evolution over the years, there is certainly enough material to write an entire section for this article and perhaps someday someone will undertake to do so ...

Polaris999 22:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. "distant grandfather" -- this peculiar language caught my attention also and I was about to change it to "ancestor" when it occurred to me that "ancestor" is sometimes used, albeit incorrectly, when there is not a direct line of descent whereas saying "distant grandfather" clarifies that issue. How do you feel about "forebear"?

• "Forbear" would be fine with me. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

2. Thank you very much for pointing out that typo of "LL" where it should be "Ll" -- I'll fix it, if you haven't already.

3. The claim re Castro perceiving Che as a "rival" is expressed elsewhere in this article but there too it is unsourced. I think that, in reality, Fidel perceived Che more as a "loose cannon" than as a threat to his hold on power. Be that as it may, I certainly agree with you that any claims about their relationship should be accompanied by citations and hope that the person(s) who inserted those claims into this article will add the appropriate citations.

Polaris999 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In one place in this article it says "Rodriguez had removed Guevara's hands to send to different parts of the world to verify his identity." In another place, it says "Also his hands were cut off and sent to Fidel Castro."

Is there documentation for the statement that it was Felix Rodriguez who cut off Che's hands? If so, would someone please attach the citation?

It is well known that in 1968 Che's hands, preserved in a jar of formaldehyde, were sent to Fidel Castro by Bolivian Interior Minister Antonio Arguedas; I am not aware of any evidence that suggests they had ever been sent to "different parts of the world to verify his identity". It is my understanding that his identity was confirmed by fingerprint analysis which was performed by two Argentine forensic experts who were sent to Bolivia for the purpose of comparing the prints taken from the body to ones known to be Che's that were on file in Buenos Aires. Polaris999 20:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- I just removed the following text from the article. I have no opinion on this matter myself, just thought it didn't belong where it was placed --JoanneB 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC) --[reply]

"The birth certificate may have been deliberately falsified to help shield the family from a scandal relating to his mother's having been three months pregnant when she was married." Why is this included in the article. What has it got to do with Guevara. It is merely a circumstance of birth. Puts an expose flavor to the article which really doesn't belong in Wikipedia (Unsigned by 71.28.252.57)

That comment definitely doesn't belong in the text of the article, but I do think that the point made by "Unsigned" is well taken. Why is there so much emphasis on this inconsequential matter in this article? It is mentioned not only in the section "Youth" referenced above, but also in a lengthy footnote attached to the introductory paragraph. I don't understand why it is necessary to include such irrelevant speculation at all, much less repeat it twice, and believe that doing so detracts from the article.

Does anyone else have any thoughts about this one way or the other?

Polaris999 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to explain why different sources give different birth dates for him. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Does this happen often? What alternate date is frequently given? But, in any case, wouldn't the lengthy footnote (#1) be sufficient to deal with this? -- 68.100.75.69 23:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details, you can search through the article history, but yes, it was flipping back and forth like a flag in the wind until we explained in some detail. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

See #Date of birth above. And that will give you the right time frame if you want to trace the actual edits to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I did notice that section a couple of hours ago. Just seems to me that an inordinate amount of space is being given to this insignificant topic. Does it really matter whether he was born on 14 May or 14 June 1928? He and his family always celebrated his birthday on 14 June and that is the date that, according to all sources I have seen, appears on all of his official documents. It therefore seems to me that a footnote mentioning the alternative date should be adequate; but if the consensus is that it deserves this much attention, I defer. Polaris999 07:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care whether it is in the main body of in a footnote, but I think it should be here. I think one of the greatest services a reference work can render is to sort out topics on which many other more casually written sources are liable to give a confused or partial story. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of minutes ago, when I tried to save a minor edit I had just done to improve the formatting of the caption on the lead photo, the SAVE was blocked and I got the following message from Wiki:

"The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

"See m:Spam blacklist for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://chehasta.nar--.ru " (where the two dashes represent the letters "od")

I tried again to save the page, but received the same message. Then I searched for the link mentioned in the error message and deleted it from the text of the article. After that, I was able to save the page without any problem.

Polaris999 04:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do we need to do to resolve the NPOV status of this article? I notice that Wiki says that there are too many articles in the NPOV category and that every effort should be made to remedy their problems and move them out ... Help anyone?? Polaris999 03:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since several of us have recently done a significant amount of work on this article, attempting in the process to address NPOV issues, isn't it time for it to be re-evaluated? Furthermore, it would be much more helpful for those of us who are working on it if specific sections that are considered to have an NPOV issue by some would be flagged individually. Having the NPOV flag attached to the entire article really does not tell us much, and is of no assistance in trying to figure out which particular sentences may be of concern to those who have NPOV issues ...

Should this article perhaps be submitted for "Peer Review" in order to elicit comments and suggestions from other Wikipedians?

Polaris999 19:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is one step from pushing for Featured Article status. I'm not sure this is there (and it's difficult to impossible to get FA status for an article that isn't stable). But since no one came forward in over 48 hours to tell you what they think still merits an NPOV flag, it certainly would be reasonable to remove it. Hopefully anyone who wants to put it back will be more specific. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jmabel, for your very helpful reply. I will proceed to remove the NPOV flag and then we will see what happens ... I would like to get this article into the best shape possible in time for October 9 when it will be linked to as a "Featured Anniversary". Polaris999 06:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that this page has two "sets" of notes currently ongoing. The first set, all of which are displayed in the text in superscript, are footnotes (at present 1-5), which according to the wiki "help" page concerning notes is the only approved usage, viz.:

Three ways to link to external (non-wiki) sources:

Bare URL: http://www.nupedia.com/ (bad style)

Unnamed link: [1] (only used within article body for footnotes)

Named link: Nupedia

But there is another set of notes, numbered 1 and 2, that are not superscripted. These notes are not footnotes but rather links to external sources.

Furthermore, even footnotes(1-5) that are in correct format are not in the currently preferred wiki style that uses names rather than numbers, so it would seem that all of the notes in this article need to be re-done to eliminate the existing duplication and incorrect format, and also to bring them into conformity with preferred wiki standards. Polaris999 22:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected this problem. All references/footnotes are now in the wiki-preferred alpha style, including those two troublesome external links.Polaris999 00:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is his name pronounced like Chey Ga-veh-raa?

More like: Cheh Geh-vah-rah

Polaris999 19:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends somewhat on where you are from. Cheh Geh-vah-rah would certainly be a common pronunciation by an English-language speaker, although that "eh" isn't quite on the mark. About halfway between the vowel sounds in "them" and "they". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I couldn't figure out how to represent that sound precisely. Perhaps the person who wrote the information about the pronunciation of "Che" in the Guatemala section of this article will do a phoenetic rendering of "Guevara" as well ... Polaris999 04:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article contains the following text:

"In 1959, he was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC[2] secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500)."

The dates given here for his tenure at La Cabaña, i.e.,"1959-1963", are not ones that I have ever seen elsewhere. It is my understanding that he was in command of La Cabaña from his arrival there on January 2, 1959 until his departure from Cuba on June 12, 1959 at the head of a diplomatic and commercial delegation that visited various countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. Upon returning to Cuba in September, he did not go back to La Cabaña but rather took up a new post as Director of Industrialization at INRA (the National Institute for Agrarian Reform). Both Anderson and Castañeda support this version of events. Therefore, I would like to request that the person who wrote that Guevara was the commander of La Cabaña from "1959-1963" kindly provide a citation for that statement and that, if it cannot be properly sourced, the dates be changed to correspond with those used by Anderson and Castañeda. Polaris999 05:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has provided a citation for "1959-1963", I am now going to change it to the dates given by Anderson and Castañeda. Polaris999 19:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was one of TDC additions all his contributions were unsourced. Ericd 21:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot recently added photos have no copyright tag. Ericd 21:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to ascertain the status of the photograph of Felix Rodriguez standing next to Che, and have discovered that this photo was taken on the order of Rodriguez while he was operating as a contract employee of the CIA, and was turned over by him to the CIA. Does anyone know what the copyright status of photos belonging to the CIA and/or other US government agencies is? Or how one could find this out? Polaris999 23:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything from the US government is public domain. See Work of the United States Government. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information. I think that the copyright status of most of the photos has now been cleared up, except for Constructinghome.jpg which was uploaded by NWOG. I had never seen this photo before and have not been able to locate any information about it. Perhaps NWOG will provide additional data about it that would help us to determine its status. Otherwise, we can replace it with one of Che doing volunteer labor on the docks or cutting sugarcane, both of which were postcards in Cuba in the mid-sixties and so would be either fair use or public domain ... Polaris999 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At 05:14 on 18 September 2005, an unregistered user changed the adjective in the first sentence of the lead paragraph in the Che article from "Marxist" to "Communist". I am wondering how other wikipedians feel about this change? Although Che held ideals that may be described as communist [and were so described by him], he never belonged to any Communist party. It would therefore seem to me that the adjective "Marxist" is more appropriate here, but I would like to hear what others think about this ... Polaris999 22:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Marxist" -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I just reverted it to "Marxist". Polaris999 06:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence, without citation, has been re-inserted into the Che article by Ericd, after having been recently removed by another user:

"Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned at La Cabana, documented Guevara's particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners."

All of the sources that I have been able to find say that Valladares was arrested and jailed in La Cabaña in 1960. Since Che's tenure as commander of La Cabaña was from January 2, 1959 until June 12, 1959, it is not possible that Che was in command while Valladares was imprisoned there and therefore Valladares cannot have experienced any mistreatment at his hands. Polaris999 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one responded to the above, I have done as much research about this matter as I can using the online resources to which I have access. I learned first of all that Valladares, according to his own testimony, did not enter La Cabaña until 1961, as per the following excerpt from his book "Against All Hope" which is available on amazon.com:

"Those were the first days of 1961. All along the shore in Havana, there were cannons pointed toward the north. The United States had broken off relations with Cuba; and the government was concerned about the threat of an invasion. The wind raised great waves that leaped over the wall of the Malecón, the seawall that runs along the coast of Havana. The car sped down the shore road and went through the tunnel across the bay, and we entered the fortress of La Cabaña. In front of the high fence, its gate opening onto the medieval-looking main entrance of the prison-fortress, they ordered us out of the car."

(For clarification: Valladares writes that he was arrested in December, 1960 but held for some days in a detention center in the Havana suburb of Miramar before being transferred to La Cabaña in early 1961.)

I then searched this entire book on the amazon.com site for the keyword "Guevara" and found that: there are no references whatsoever to any interaction between Che Guevara and Armando Valladares, nor to any incidents witnessed by Valladares that involved Che Guevara, nor any suggestion that Guevara was in charge of La Cabaña fortress during the time that Valladares was imprisoned there.

For the above reasons, I am going to remove the referenced sentence from the "Revolutionary government" section of the Che article.

Polaris999 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was an unsourced addition by TDC this was alleged in many sites on the net before TDC's "contributions". I've tried to verify and source some of TDC contributions and rewrite it in NPOV way. Personally, I don't consider Valladares as a reliable source. You're smarter than me in verifying the chronology. Ericd 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ericd, for your comments and for the interesting information about how you improved, verified and sourced parts of this article. Tracking down citations certainly can be a "time sink", as I have lately discovered. Now that the article has developed to a certain stage of coherency, perhaps we should be more vigilant about enforcing the wiki policy regarding obligatory referencing (as outlined in Cite your sources)? I would also like to ask you whether you believe that this article, as it now exists, has adequate sourcing, or should I add a few more? No doubt, if we put our minds to it, we could find a citation for every sentence now included here -- excluding, in my case, the sections "In the movies" and "In video games" about which I have no clue. But, would that be overdoing it? Do we really want to have a footnote at the end of every sentence, or is there a point beyond which "hyper-citation" becomes clutter? I would also be very interested to hear what you consider to be the major deficiencies of this article in its current state and any suggestions you might share re how it could be further improved ... Thank you - Polaris999 07:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit overbooked yet but I will try to post an extensive comment about the article next week. Ericd 09:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph contains a sentence that ends:
"many believe the Bolivian government purposefully executed him in order to avoid a public trial and potential martyrization of Che's image."

I am wondering about the appropriateness of "purposefully" here, which strikes me as redundant. Has anyone ever been executed "accidentally"?

Would appreciate hearing the opinions of other wikipedians re whether "purposefully" should be left in this sentence, or removed ... Polaris999 05:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I don't know if "many believe" is right I haven't read it completely yet but CIA declassified documents seems to show than the CIA wanted Guevara alive. If you feel to dig in this here is the URL : http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/ Ericd 09:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, and for the link -- as it happens, I have read all of those documents. I am fully convinced that the Bolivians intended to execute Guevara from the outset, but think the wording in this sentence could be better: something like, "many believe that the Bolivian government decided to execute him in order to avoid a public trial (etc.)". Re your point concerning "many believe", I think it is very well taken -- perhaps you will suggest an alternate way of expressing the situation. About the CIA allegedly having wanted him to be kept alive, it seems to me that, had this been the case, Felix Rodriguez could have found some means of stalling the execution; instead, when the schoolteacher mentioned to him that the radio was saying that Che had died of his wounds, he immediately passed this information on to the Bolivians knowing (according to his own testimony) that this would cause them to speed up the execution. Of course, there is always the possibility that others at the CIA wanted Guevara to be kept alive, but Rodriguez was acting on his own initiative because of his long-standing personal animosity against Guevara ... (But, if this were the case, shouldn't Rodriguez have faced disciplinary procedures at the CIA for insubordination? And there is no evidence that I have heard of that suggests he did.)

I will certainly be looking forward to your analysis of this article, whenever you have the chance to do it! -- Many thanks, Polaris999 23:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Guevara was already pretty well known before he was executed. They had to have known that killing him might make him a martyr.Most likely it was to save a trial.-

71.28.243.246 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you -- to avoid a trial, and also to avoid having to incarcerate him on Bolivian soil while he was serving his sentence. Polaris999 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont honestly know enough about the subject to identify any specific instances, but it appears to me that the Article is very reliant on Guevara's diaries, especially for the later period of his life. Obviously, the reason why is the lack of reliable sources on this time. But nevertheless, I'd be loath to describe ANY autobiographic source as unbiased. --RaiderAspect 11:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a paragraph in the section "Hero Cult" - namely the following:

"Guevara, who murdered numerous people, and who jointly presided over the Cuban Communist movement that murdered thousands, has been adopted as the symbol of the Crypto-Communist "Anti-Globalization Campaign" as a "symbol of peace"! "

The text is clearly marked by significant anti-Guevara and anti-leftist bias; even though it couldn't hurt to include a passage about the use and significance of Che's image for current groups that may or may not have any affiliation with his life and thought (antiglobalism, popculture), this version is not at all fit for Wiki-material. Please rewrite the section, as soon as a consensus on the substance is reached.

Thanks, --212.123.167.171 14:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at : http://canf.org/2005/1es/historia/2005-jun-01-documented-victims-of-che-guevara.htm

203.199.81.148 has added the following sentences to the section "Bolivia":

"Most of those Bolivians who were suspected of any alignment or even thought of cherishing any sympathy for Che Guevara were tortured for information and then summarily executed. By some estimates, around 300,000 people of Bolivia fell victim to the mass hunt orchestrated by the Bolivian government with the full support of the CIA."

Does this mean that 300,000 Bolivians were summarily executed during the 11 months that Che was in Bolivia? I have never heard anything like this before, but have no personal knowledge of the situation. Does anyone else have any information to confirm or debunk this statement? (No citation is provided by the 203.199.81.148.)

Since no one responded to this query, and because the claim that 300,000 Bolivians were tortured and summarily executed during the 11 months in question seems extremely improbable and I have not been able to find any documentation to support it, I have just now removed the two sentences referenced above from this article. If 203.199.81.148 or anyone else comes forward with a certifiable source for this statement, it can of course be restored. As to the other change made by 203.199.81.148 (below), I hope that some of you will share your thoughts as to whether it should be allowed to stand, be modified, or the paragraph restored to the status quo ante. Thank you -- Polaris999 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

203.199.81.148 has also changed a paragraph in the "Capture and Execution" section that had read:

"On October 15 Castro admitted that the death had occurred and proclaimed three days of public mourning throughout Cuba. The death of Guevara was regarded as a severe blow to the socialist revolutionary movements throughout Latin America."

to

"On October 15 Castro admitted that the death had occurred and proclaimed three days of public mourning throughout Cuba. The death of Guevara was regarded as a severe blow to the socialist revolutionary movements throughout Latin America, and the rest of the third world countries. The loss of Che Guevara was felt in the hearts, minds and the collective consciousness of the people all over the world."

It seems to me that the last sentence may have POV problems ... Polaris999 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NB: This particular problem has just been resolved (at least temporarily) by TDC who removed the sentence in question at 17:49, 14 October 2005 with the comment "(→Capture and Execution - remove ridiculous POV)". Polaris999 02:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Che Guevara is titled "Dr. Ernesto Rafael Guevara de le Serna" in the introduction, something I find to be factually incorrect. A degree in medicine (M.D) is not the same as a doctorate (Dr.), and although "Doctor" is somewhat interchangable with physician in everyday language, it's still factually incorrect and not suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Nothing in the article suggests that Che Guevara earned a doctorate in medicine (or any other field), and the prefix "Dr." is thus colloquial at best and misleading at worst, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedic article. I will now remove the prefix from the article(again), and ask that whoever reverts it explain why on this page.

OK, I see that it's been changed to M.D, which at least isn't factually incorrect. Kinda irrelevant for the introduction, though. It isn't a defining characteristic, and it's mentioned later in the article.

In the section Criticism, praise, etc., someone has failed to enter an item in correct wiki format; I have highlighted this item in red below. As a result of the incorrect manner in which this item was entered, it is appearing as footnote #20, although it is not a footnote at all, and therefore threatens to destroy the format of the entire article. Because of this, I am removing it and hope that the wikipedian who entered it will be careful to use the correct syntax if he/she wishes to enter it again.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara, 1928-1967 Critical look at Guevara's life from an anarchist perspective.
Hasta siempre, Comandante, popular song by Carlos Puebla (lyrics, notation, and several digital audio formats)
Hasta siempre, Comandante performed by Carlos Puebla and his group Los Tradicionales, in RealPlayer format -- click to listen
Carta al Che performed by Carlos Puebla and his group Los Tradicionales, in .wav format -- click to listen
[20]]Fidel's Executioner
By Humberto Fontova

Polaris999 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote much of the content in this article a little over a year ago. Since then this article has been loaded once again with way too many iconic images of Guevara. This is unencyclopedic, as the article is on the real Guevara-- not the icon in Communist agitprop or Western pop culture. I'm going to go ahead and remove some of the iconic photos. 172 | Talk 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article might also be able to do without the large list of external links originating or pertaining to Western sources. It should strike people as odd that few of them are related to literature, monuments, or events sponsored by the Cuban Communist Party. Whether Che's Western admirers like it or not, his legacy is most notable in connection with the Cuban Communist Party, which he was instrumental in transforming into the single ruling party of Cuba. 172 | Talk 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an article about the man Ernesto Guevara, I thought it might be better if we would create a seperate article for the unfortunate commercialization of Ernesto's image. It has nothing to do with who Che was, and he always had a feeling of intense dislike of celebrities, commercialization, hero worshipping, etc. So I suggest we create a seperate article for that. - NWOG, 01:24, 22 October 2005

No one can argue with your point. But I don't see the problem with keeping the section on the hero cult toward the end, so long as it stays within reasonable limits. 172 | Talk 01:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following lines were recently inserted into this section:

"Che's determination to march many miles in hot humid weather that aggravated this condition was an inspiration to the men who fought alongside him, most of whom were Afro-Cubans from the most oppressed ranks of the peasantry, the so-called 'guajiros.'" [5]

There are several problems here.

• First, what does "this condition" refer to? One can guess that it is perhaps a reference to his asthma, but this is not at all clear from the text.
• Second, the external link placed at the end of this sentence, apparently in an attempt to create a footnote (?), is not coded in the correct wiki syntax and therefore disrupts and disorders all of the other footnotes/references in the article, for which reason it must be removed and I will do so presently.
• Third, the above-referenced link leads to a page the URL of which is: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/Che_Guevara.htm

At the top of this page there appear the lines:

Che Guevara: a Revolutionary Life

By Jon Lee Anderson Grove Press, 1997, 814 pages

which certainly suggest that the text on the page is an excerpt from Anderson's book, which it is not. It seems to be a review or commentary that some unnamed person has written about the Anderson book, and the reference in question is therefore totally misleading.

Over the past several days, User 172 has been repeatedly deleting the "Photo Gallery" from the Che article. Several other users have been restoring it. User 172 deleted it at 10:22, 22 October 2005 with the comment "(getting rid of non-standard photo gallery)". I restored it at 13:20, 22 October 2005 with the explanation "(restoring Photo Gallery which is in compliance with wiki standards as specified on page Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial)".

User 172 then deleted the Photo Gallery at 14:13, 22 October 2005 with the comment" (Anyone can edit those pages and create a new "policy." The one you are citing is not practiced, as photo albums have been rejected by consensus in the past in many similar articles)".

In order to find out what the consensus of wikipedians is concerning the inclusion of the Photo Gallery at the bottom of the Che article, I have set up a survey to elicit votes. If you support the inclusion of the Photo Gallery, vote "Support". If you oppose inclusion of the Photo Gallery, vote "Oppose".

Please participate! -- Thank you, Polaris999 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case any of you have not seen the Photo Gallery in question, I have temporarily set it up on a separate page so you can take a look at it: Che Guevara photo gallery
Polaris999 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

I doubt that consensus can be illustrated by the fiat of a vote. The best indication is the absense of photo albums from similiar articles and the archives of the conversations in which they were ruled out in the past. 172 | Talk 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – The gallery is small and unobtrusive. I think you should link to the photo gallery on an old version of the page instead of creating a new page (like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara&oldid=26198076#Photo_gallery).   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with Chris Capoccia... Melca 14:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the article already has many, many images. There's no need for an additional gallery; that's what the Commons is for. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why Guevara should get a photo gallery while subjects of other biographies on Wikipedia should not. The problem is that extraneous would get added, despite the lack of importance concerning what is taking place in those photos. Stalin used photographs of himself in carefully selected settings as a propaganda tool in order to create a myth for himself. In the same sense, Wikipedia editors could be accused of the same practice if the article includes many random photos illustrating nothing other than Guevara appearing to be a "heroic guerrilla." 172 | Talk 03:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many pictures of Stalin in the Joseph Stalin article. Maybe they should be arranged into some sort of gallery instead of randomly scattered throughout the article. Stalin deserves a gallery too.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the pictures as propaganda. Maybe if there were pictures of him surrounded by children or people cheering you could have a point but not with the current gallery. - Melca 21:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The images not included in the article already are propaganda. What is the reason for the picture of him alone playing with the puppy? Such a photo does not offend me. But I know Cuban Americans who regard Guevara as nothing more than a ruthless killer who would be quite offended if such photos were to be included. 172 | Talk 08:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Cuban Americans be offended by a picture of Che and his puppy? The puppy is barely visible and i first noticed it when i read your post (it’s very cute though ;). I really think you should use your energy on something else. I doubt people form an opinion on an important person from history just by his or her pictures. And just so you know Wikipedia is not a place for people who get easily offended and it doesn’t try not to be. Just check this article ex: Oral sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melca (talk • contribs) 10 November 2005

The very point of a gallery is to place photos when there are too many, as is the case here. And leaving out info (well, it's a form of info) because it is too much is not the Wikipedia way. But there aren't enough pictures to warrant a separate page, so the gallery is a neat solution. I'm mildly in favour of using <'gallery> tags, though. DirkvdM 07:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. At the very least the two famous photos should be in the article and they should even get a more prominent place, but there are plenty other pics as well, so a gallery is a good idea. Which ones should go in it and which ones should be made bigger or put in a more prominent place is a different matter. DirkvdM 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose somewhat. More appropriate in the Commons. Too many photos in the article makes it take too long to load, for one thing. HGB 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important consideration which must definitely be weighed -- thank you very much for mentioning it. I am afraid that those of us who have faster connections may tend to overlook the matter of loading time and we need to be more attentive to this. Polaris999 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The photo gallery is small and unobtrusive. Cedars 08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Voyager640 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Guevara started playing chess by the age of 12, only later to become one of the Island's Grandmasters." I'm guessing that "the Island" means Cuba, but at the age of 12 he was not on an island, was he? Assuming I have read correctly, could someone please reword appropriately? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does say 'only later', so not at the age of twelve. So you didn't read correctly. :) DirkvdM 08:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but still nothing there is no grammatical antecedent for "the Island". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, just wanted to write a note in support of your decision to take out the reference to Che's supposedly having been a Grandmaster of Chess. When that assertion first appeared in the Wiki article a few weeks ago, I was almost positive that it was an error. Nevertheless, since it is always possible that he was a Grandmaster of Chess but that this information had somehow escaped my notice, I did not feel that I should remove it without doing some research. Since then, I have looked through many print and internet sources and have not found any documentation to support the claim that he was a Grandmaster of Chess. He definitely was an aficionado of the game, and a somewhat skilled player, but I do not believe that his participation went beyond that. I have noticed that he is referred to on some Spanish language web sites as el Gran Maestro, which may be the source of the confusion -- however, this allusion is to the didactic value of his revolutionary example, not a title in Chess ... Polaris999 05:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly incorrect that Guevara was a Grandmaster. (This is an official title given by the world chess organztion FIDE. There are only ion the order of hundreds GM in the world today, and not even all professional players are GMs. The match against Najdorf was a blind-simultaneous game (Najdorf played against 10 or so others simulatneously without looking at the boards), and apparently he offered a draw to Guevara, who rejected the offer, but ultimately Najdorf won.

(There's a chess base article on Guevara and chess, unfortunately only in German, here: http://www.chessbase.de/events/events.asp?pid=569 )

Accuracy, coherency, grammar and vocabulary seem not to be a matter of concern to many of the people who are "contributing" here recently. For example, I have been waiting for several days now for someone to explain by exactly what means the "dissents" referred to in the section Revolutionary government were "executed".

Jmabel, since you are very knowledgeable about all things Wiki, would you please explain at what point a page becomes a candidate for protection, and whether this page is approaching that threshold? Thank you -- Polaris999 18:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has finally changed "dissents" to "dissidents" ... Polaris999 21:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how knowledgable I am, but as far as I can tell, this is nowhere near any threshold for protection. There are 3 reasons we protect pages:

1. For obvious reasons, we temporarily protect images while they are on the front page.
2. We temporarily protect articles that are receiving a storm of vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. If it's from a variety of IP addresses, we can't solve it with blocks, and this sort of thing can just plain render a page useless if not stopped somehow.
3. We sometimes temporarily protect articles that are the subject of edit wars: when the process has broken down, and there is no movement toward consensus on the talk page, this forces people to shift to discussion rather than edit warring.

We do not protect over poorly executed good-faith edits.

The only one of the three conditions for protection that even imaginably might be occurring (I haven't been following super-closely) is the last. But I haven't seen anyone (you included) raising important issues on the talk page and not getting responses. The (admittedly messy) wiki process seems to me to be working about as usual for a controversial topic. If you have some specific issues that you think are a problem, lay them out. But if it's just bad spelling, grammar, and usage, just fix it (or don't: you are not required to be the custodian). And if a passage is incoherent, then you can cut it to the talk page & reproduce it here with a message that you have no idea what it was intended to mean, and would the author please reword.

Given the topic of this article, many of the most knowledgable people may have better Spanish than English. If that looks like what is going on, and you can't understand what they are trying to say, you can invite them to write their stuff in Spanish on the talk page: there are plenty of people around who can translate Spanish to English. (But apparently this is not what was happening)-- Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself: yes, the degree of edit warring the last few days does approach protection level (although it seems to have calmed down the last 20 hours or so). But no one, yourself included, has brought the substantive issues to the talk page (and there were so many edits that with a backlog on my watchlist, this never made it to the top.) Please, someone, summarize the differences here, and try to discuss them on the talk page rather than by warring edit summaries. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jmabel, for clarifying this matter. I had, of course, read the wiki page re protection, but was not sure exactly how the standards would apply to what was going on with the Che page. It is encouraging to see that the warring edits have slackened off over the past 20+ hours; perhaps this trend will continue. If not, I hope that the disputing parties will follow your advice and bring their disagreements to the talk page for resolution.

Polaris999 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the latest changes by User: NWOG. I thought I'd give the reasons

1. He says that Cuban exiles cannot be trusted because they hated Che and were responsible for his death. This assumes that every single Cuban exile is collectively responsible for the death and therefore no one can be trusted. I don't think it makes sense to assign collective guilt to a class of people.
2. If in fact I see a man shooting a 12 year old boy in cold blood, I am not going to like the man. You cannot then use my dislike of the man to claim that my testimony cannot be trusted because I am biased and have a point of view. If this standard were adopted, no case could possibly be decided.
3. To assign motives to a class of people as some people have done in their edit summaries ("They are an enemy of Cuba" etc.) is POV. If this were a valid way of doing things, then we could never quote primary sources on contentious topics like these- because every one of them will be too close to the action to be unbiased.

--Ravikiran 05:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this one person, he was already in jail when it happened. If so, why was he in jail? Was he a member of the secret police? A Batista-soldier? According to David Icke, Bush and Dick Cheney is a paedophile. He is serious when he claims Bush and Dick is responsible for the attack on the WTC. He also believe the world leaders are reptiles. But does his claims belong to an encyclopedia? There will always be conspiracy theories. You simply need proof if you are to suggest a person (whoever that may be) is a child-killer. Because these claims are even less reliable than German tabloids, if we are to discuss the Norwegian royal family. - NWOG

We are not trying Che Guevara. We are just reporting on what some people who are involved in a story are saying. The reader can read the books and make up his own mind. We are just pointing to him. There are many reasons why a person could be in jail in Cuba. One of them could be that he opposed the regime. It is an interesting point of view to assume that just because someone was in jail, he must be lying about other things too. --Ravikiran 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Che was an avid photographer then wouldn't it be a good idea to include some of his photos (possibly on a separate page)? I assume they'd be free of copyright. Anyone know where to find any? DirkvdM 08:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here :

http://www.mkg-hamburg.de/english/ausstell/03_che/home.htm

Ericd 11:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Not a very large collection, but then it's only meant as an apetiser for the display. I'm still unsure about the copyrights, but the site states that the photos are on loan from the 'Centro de Estudios Che Guevara, Havana, Cuba'. And I seriously doubt if they'd object to publication of the photos elsewhere. It's been asked about at Google answers, but the answers aren't conclusive. So for now I'll just add the link you gave to the article. DirkvdM 08:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guevara was not notable as a photographer. An external link to a wesbite featuring his photos can be added, but there's no reason to place them in the article. 172 | Talk 08:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about messing up the formatting of the introduction to the article, but someone messed up the entire article's facts, so I was forced to replace that introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.86.166 (talk) 21 November 2005

To say that Che was a commie yes but that man had ideas to end poverty and turning to communism is the best way the world can do.To me i think this man is a hero to the poor people .My mothers and fathers family didnt have that much and knowing that one man would change there life to be more comfortable where there would be no rich or poor is somethig great. What this man was fighting for was a cause and that was great. At the age of 39 Ernesto died and if he didnt die then mabye life would be alot more easier. This man is a hero and i belive in him and so dose the people of every other coutry.to my me and all my family he is ahero and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.182.147 (talk) 22 November 2005

In December 1964, Che Guevara went to New York City to visit the UN. While there, he had little-known meetings with three associates of Robert Kennedy: newsman Tad Szulc, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and journalist Lisa Howard. A few weeks later, in January 1965, a Cuban exile supported by Robert Kennedy in 1963, Eloy Menoyo, was arrested while on a secret mission into Cuba.

This may be true (although it's uncited), but its placement immediately before "After April 1965 Guevara dropped out of public life and then vanished altogether," insinuates causality. Is there any basis for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to write a book speculating that Che Guevara had been an extra-terrestrial, would it be appropriate to include quotations from it in this article? Aren't there certain standards of credibility that are supposed to be observed when writing for Wiki? I could totally demolish, point by point, all of the bizarre and absolutely baseless speculations in the work that you are referring to, but consider that they are so absurd as to not merit the time this would require. Polaris999 09:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted "Many of these same teachings, today, are criticized as revolution-through-terrorism, due to their emphasis on asymmetrical warfare." The sentence doesn't make a lot of sense; and the use of "asymmetrical warfare" (warfare between opponents of widely different capabilities) instead of the more precise "guerilla warfare" doesn't help. I presume that the intention behind this sentence is something like "Guevara's teachings have been criticised as tevolution-through-terrorism because the weak guerilla forces must perforce use terror as their primary method, due to their inability to mount conventional battles". I don't think that this is true, though I will leave the final decision to those with more knowledge than myself. I think Guevara's attitude, and the general intention of guerilla warfare, is to win the support of the population and to make hit-and-run raids on enemy forces. Terror is used only as a tool to prevent the population from supporting the enemy. Anti-guerilla forces use terror in the same way.

To clarify the mind, a less controversial case is useful. Think in terms of the French resistance to the German WWII occupation. Pol098 05:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pol098 -- Just a note to say that I am in agreement with your decision to remove that sentence. Che strongly opposed the use of violence against the civilian population. In Bolivia, the people who lived in the area where the guerrillas were operating generally referred to him as "El Médico" because he spent most of his time with them diagnosing their medical problems and giving them whatever medicines he might have that were appropriate to treat their illnesses. When requested to do so, he even pulled their teeth. As to whether or not all guerrilla groups everywhere have always eschewed the use of terror, I believe that each group would need to be studied individually to find out exactly what its specific policies are/were. Polaris999 09:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polaris999. And the reason I removed the original sentence was that it was gibberish, didn't mean anything; and if you pushed it into meaning something it was wrong in general, not just about Guevara. Any tiny, ill-equipped, but sane group MUST gain local support, whether sincerely or cynically; 100 men can't terrorise a population into supporting them against an army. I don't think any guerilla groups, including Guevara's, eschew the use of selective terror, it's just a targetted tool, not overall policy: anyone local captured by the enemy of the guerillas must be very afraid of what will happen if (s)he talks. So I'd expect the standard guerilla policy to be: make friends with and help the local population in general, but deal very harshly with anyone who betrays, whatever the circumstances.

Pol098 12:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to some Eutimio Guerra was a major figure in the "Agrarian Reform" movement in the Sierra Maestra. It is not known if he really was a traitor since with few exceptions we only have Guevara and Castro's versions of events. However, it is wise to remember that Guerra was only one of many people, killed, or driven from the Sierra Maestra by Guevara to be killed by Batista forces. These bloody events had few witnesses and seemed to have involved complex struggles between those loyal to Frank Pais, the clandestine communists who fled the 1933 Soviet of the Sugar factory at Mabay, bandits loyal to Cresencio Perez, and an odd assortment of Spanish Republic loyalists. There also seems to have been some CIA involvement supporting Castro. xe xe El Jigüe