Che Guevara is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Che Guevara has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed March 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted April 23, 2008 Featured article review Demoted August 28, 2009 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:VA

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

Socialism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / South America / Cold War GA‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force South American military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Biography: Military / Politics and Government / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Argentina Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve Che Guevara, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cuba Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: Task list New article announcements: Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba) Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: Nochebuena NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven Caribbean High‑importance Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Basque This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Basque Country, Basque people, Basque language, history and culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Bolivia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bolivia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all Bolivia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoliviaWikipedia:WikiProject BoliviaTemplate:WikiProject BoliviaBolivia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is featured on the Bolivia Portal selected article section. Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral Template:Notforum Template:Maintained

In the article of his early life, a quote is given where his father talks about supposed "blood of Irish rebels", however this romantic gloss does not match history or facts of Guevara's actual ancestry. Che's "Irish" ancestry is Anglo-Irish and aristocratic (ie - Norman). His ancestor was Patrick Lynch (Argentina), whose family owned Lydican Castle in Galway (his ancestors actually benefited from the confiscation of land from the local Catholic cheiftan). While the concept of his ancestry as some sort of "Gaelic rebel" and famine-lore is popular amongst IRA types, the reality is far more aristocratic. - Rí Lughaid (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im Irish but my family are all Ulster scots i have irish citizenship and consider myself Irish che is no differnt in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.12.128 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here the article says the English translation is "Until the Everlasting Victory Always", the word everlasting is redundant as there is nothing everlasting in the original Spanish. I think the idea and what he meant is that the revolution/fighting will always go on until victory. I would therefore simply translate as "Always until victory", it doesn't sound as glamorous as the present translation but to me it's truer to what it is said in Spanish. PatrickC (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Until the Eternal Victory" would be an accurate (more literal) translation, and have changed it accordingly. Your thoughts?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this expression is nuanced enough and unclear that we may need citations. I found two Google books Always until victory and Always unto victory. We may have to cite these expressions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "Always until victory" or variations thereof is a common translation: Google results. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"[Che Guevara] as the only other ranked Comandante besides Fidel Castro" - a source needs to be provided for this, because this is an interesting statement. Guevara was certainly seen as being 'on equal terms' with Castro, but I am curious to learn if he indeed was the only one to hold this title of Comandante.

Was Castro's brother not also "Comandante Raúl" and was there not a Comandante Almeida, referring to Juan Almeida Bosque, as well as Comandante Ramiro Valdés? Soviet223 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known Comandante was also Camilo Cienfuegos .Henrig (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted accordingly, thanks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) -- (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

"Former Stasi operative Haydée Tamara Bunke Bider, better known by her nom de guerre "Tania", who had been installed as his primary agent in La Paz, was reportedly also working for the KGB..." as written in this article is unproven rumour which has been refuted by the German authorities who hold the Stasi files from the period and the Russian authorities who hold the KGB files from the period. I suggest this is amended appropriately within this article to reflect these authoritative statemnets and not baselesss rumour. See main "Tania" Wikipedia entry and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1388018/Mother-fights-Che-film-over-lover-claims.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentionmekindly (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted accordingly, thanks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) -- (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased and POV and contributes to the whitewashing of a mass murders crimes. Che was responsible for the deaths of women and children under his command, these things did not just happen (the article uses this irresponsible language) HE ORDERED THEM KILLED. A section needs to be added to make sure the reader gets this point. This article gives undue weight to a flattering view of The Butcher of La Cabaña.-- Benjamin 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As with every other article in Wikipedia, you are welcome to propose new content based on and referenced to independent, reliable sources. What would you suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin, although you are entitled to your own ideological opinion or WP:POV, that doesn't make it fact. Probably no other issue has been more discussed, researched, and cross-checked with reliable references (from both sides of the spectrum) over the years on this TP than Che's role in the executions at La Cabaña. I would encourage you to utilize the search box on the top of this page to see the dearth of material and past WP:Consensus reached on the topic. Moreover, the article at present utilizes a range of references from his main peer reviewed biographers (i.e Anderson, Taibo II, and Castañeda) and even cross-references these numbers with the information/accusations of the anti-Che U.S.-based Cuban Archive Project (an advocacy outfit that like you believes him to be a "mass murderer") ... see --> reference 104 for a full break down of the numbers.

Now to other specifics of your WP:SOAPBOX post:

[a] - As for your "whitewash" assessment, the article is supposed to reflect the majority of scholarly and published sources, which in this case you would also probably describe as "whitewashed". However our task here is to reflect that reality, not to "correct" or "revise" it.

[b] - You have declared Guevara a "mass murder"(er) and report this as an indisputable historical fact. However, this moniker is not found in the majority of WP:RELIABLE sources per WP:UNDUE. It would be analogous to describing him with the euphemism "freedom fighter", which you actually could source to a number of biographies, but would still be inappropriate from a Wiki pov standpoint. Now it is indisputable that Guevara personally shot individuals during wartime and a "revolution". Anderson notes several (around 10) documented examples of men who were shot personally by Guevara or on his command for a number of "crimes" in the Sierra including desertion, stealing rations, raping a peasant, being an informer (chivato) etc. Anderson also notes the 55 executions at La Cabana carried out in instances where Guevara had the final appellate say on whether to suspend or lessen the death sentences handed down by the 3 person revolutionary tribunals. As not to drag this response on forever, I will point you to a previous archived discussion --> La Cabaña & Executions. With all that said, "mass murder"(er) is a judgment call and matter of opinion. For starters who defines "mass", more than one? However, the article does note that Guevara "unhesitatingly shot defectors", "executed" individuals, and that certain people consider him an "ruthless executioner", and "butcher" etc. These are all acceptable to be made note of in the article, but not as a declarative statement. As an example, President Harry Truman ordered the nuclear incineration of 100,000 + Japanese. But it would be POV to open up his article by describing him as a "mass killer of women and children", because none of the major sources do - see WP:NPOV and WP:MORALIZE. Yet one can still mention in his article the facts surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb, or mention how some consider that a "war crime", without calling him a "war criminal" or using "atrocity".

[c] - No disinterested or major biography on Che mentions him executing any women during his time as a guerrilla or having any women executed while in charge of La Cabaña. The only writer to originate and repeatedly make this claim of one pregnant woman being shot by Che is the polemical Humberto Fontova, however he would not be a reliable source per WP:VERIFY for an neutral encyclopedia article see ---> Using Humberto Fontova.

[d] - As for Che killing "children", the usual sole accusation of a 14 year old boy being killed by Che originates from a December 28, 1997 letter to the editor of the El Nuevo Herald (Spanish Miami Herald) by the unknown Pierre San Martin (who claims to be a surviving prisoner from La Cabana). The claim had been widely purported again by Humberto Fontova in his litany of Anti-Che articles for Conservative websites, despite the fact that it is not mentioned in the other --> 40 or so Che biographies (which do not utilize the hyperbolic language or have the agenda of Fontova). Now several of the boys in Che's own units during the revolution were 15-16 years old. Many of the (now men) who fought under Che, speak about how many teenagers from the cities flocked to join the revolution and were incorporated into July 26 as Guerrillas. Is it thus plausible that those under 18 years old were executed? Sure. Especially considering the fact that teens under 18 fought on both sides of the conflict. However, by impugning the context of "killing children" (as if Che was shooting up the elementary schools) is false, as even a 16 year old during this time in Cuba in the late 1950's would have been seen as a man for all intents and purposes.

[e] - As for your moniker of him being "The Butcher of La Cabaña", the article currently makes note (in the appropriate Legacy section) of how this epithet is utilized by people like yourself who view Che unfavorably.

Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please, could you clarify the meaning of 'people like yourself'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.148.227 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2, sure, the original poster "Benjamin" refers to Che as a "mass murder"(er) and the "The Butcher of La Cabana." And as I say, the article already makes note that there are people out there such as Benjamin and others (i.e. people "like him") who hold this view.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi, I apologize for my english; I used to write almost fairly in english, but that was so long ago...

Reference number 1 says that

...one tertiary source, (Julia Constenla, quoted by Jon Lee Anderson), asserts that he was actually born on May 14 of that year. Constenla alleges that she was told by an unidentified astrologer that his mother, Celia de la Serna, was already pregnant when she and Ernesto Guevara Lynch were married and that the date on the birth certificate of their son was forged to make it appear that he was born a month later than the actual date to avoid scandal. (Anderson 1997, pp. 3, 769.)

I looked for the originary source here, but I was surprised to find that the source says a completely different thing:

The horoscope was confunding. If Ernesto Che Guevara had been born on June 14, 1928, as stated on his birth certificate, then he was a Gemini... The Che who emerged from her analysis was a grey, dependent personality... But this was in the early 1960's, and Che was already one of the most people in the world. When the puzzled astrologer showed Che's mother the dismal horoscope, she laughed. Then she confied a secret that sha had guarded closely for more than three decades. Her son had actually been born a month earlier, on May 14... The deception had been necessary, because she was three months pregnant when she married Che's father... A doctor friend falsified the date on the birth certificate, moving it back by one month to help shield them from scandal

Looking for other versions, I found an interesting one in Paco Ignacio Taibo II, Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che, pág. 23:[1] It says that

Existe una tercera versión, que narrará Julia Constenla, quien dirá que Celia le contó "Ernesto no nació el 14 de junio, sino el 14 de mayo. Yo me casé embarazada. Mis tías viejas hubieran muerto de saberlo. Así, apenas casados, nos fuimos a Misiones con mi marido. Y más tarde, cuando estaba por dar a luz, a Rosario, donde me atendió un primo de Guevara."

Translated to english, it says (something like)

There is a third version, told by Julia Constenla, who said Celia told her: "Ernesto was not born in June 14, but in May 14. I married being pregnant. My old aunts would have died if they would have known that. So, just after getting married, we moved to Misiones with my husband. And later, when I was about to give birth, to Rosario, where I was asisted by Guevara's cousin"

So the reference does not say that the story was told by "an unidentified astrologer". It clearly says that the story was told to Constenla by Celia De la Serna herself. There is another reference to Constenla. In Página/12 (a newspaper from Buenos Aires) there was published an interview to Constenla, on February 25, 2005 [2]. In this interview, Constenla says

“El Che nació el 14 de mayo. Sin embargo, fue anotado un mes después, el 14 de junio, para ser presentado como sietemesino, porque Celia de la Serna se casó embarazada, pero siempre quiso ocultárselo a su familia”, asegura la periodista Julia Constenla, autora de Celia, la madre del Che (Ed. Sudamericana), en donde revela el secreto mejor guardado de la familia Guevara. Un secreto que Celia le confió personalmente, a través de una relación que empezó en la primera entrevista con la madre del Che y derivó en una amistad que siguió hasta su muerte, el 18 de mayo de 1965.

Translated to english, it would be something like

"Che was born in May 14. However, he was registred a month later, on June 14, to be presented as born in 7 months, because Celia de la Serna got married when she was pregnant, but she always wanted to hide it from her family," says journalist Julia Constenla, author fo "Celia, la madre del Che" (Ed. Sudamericana), where she reveals Guevara family's best hiden secret. A secret that Celia personally told her, throug a relation that started in the fisrt interview with Che's mother y became a friendship that lasted until her death, May 18th, 1965.

So the information related here is false, that was not a tertiary source, but was somttihng told directly by Celia De la Serna to Constenla. I don't know if the story Celia told to Constenla is true, or even if Constenla is telling a true version of what Celia De la Serna told her. But the reference about the astrologer is a complete misunderstanding about an anecdote that had nothing to be with an astrologer telling anything to Constenla.

I would prefer the information would be changed by a more expert user, or at least someone who actually can write in english, not me. Thankes to anyone that reads this, sorry for the comment's length, and sorry again for my english. User:Marcelo / talk --200.32.116.2 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted accordingly, thanks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stumink / IP 88 (same person), I would dispute your --> added contention that the 20,000 death toll under Fulgencio Batista is "propaganda" and a ""cynical falsehood" (via Miguel Ángel Quevedo) - which I believe to be WP:UNDUE and a WP:FRINGE point of view. Some of the confusion I believe arises because some sources address the civilian murders during the Revolution from 1957-1959 and thus 2,000 deaths - whereas the cited 20,000 killed in the article under Batista (sourced to a 2007 Che biography by German historian & author Frank Niess), is the given number of people killed by Batista's regime collectively during his years in office (1933-1944) & primarily (1952-1959). The 2,000 deaths during the armed insurrection from 1957-59 is often cited by anti-Castro writers as an attempt to call into question the more commonly accepted mainstream 20,000 figure (which was repeatedly echoed numerous times by President John F. Kennedy of all people). For instance, the 1959 United States Senate Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws by the Committee on the Judiciary (digitized online), noted that = "Batista in Cuba was regarded as the butcher of some 20,000 or 25,000 of its finest youth." This matches the belief 10 years later by the 1969 United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence which published a report entitled: 'Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives: A Report' - where on Page 582 it states that = "It is clear that counter terror became the strategy of the Batista government ... It has been estimated by some that as many as 20,000 civilians were killed." Now admittedly many historical events have a death count that is altered over time as more information comes about, however, the 20,000 total has remained consistent in the majority (see Wp:Undue) of sources from 1959 to the present day ...

Some published examples of this include:

• Bolivia, Press and Revolution 1932-1964‎ - Page 347 .... "Batista had been responsible for perhaps as many as 20,000 deaths"

• Controversy Over Cuba‎ - Page 3 (by the D.C. Committee on National Legislation, hardly Pravda or Granma) .... "Some l9,000 to 20,000 Cubans were murdered during Batista’s regime, some were tortured, others bled to death after being castrated"

Lastly, I would point out ---> this short clip from the documentary Fidel: The Untold Story and the section of the clip from [1:03-1:09] right after testimony by Wayne Smith (former head of the United States Interests Section in Havana). Then again as author Abbott Joseph Liebling notes in his 1981 book The Press‎ - Page 267: "On the international scene, the 20,000 shootings by Batista got considerably less space than the 700 by Castro."  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2,000 figure is well sourced so it should be mentioned as i have numerous sources. The 20,000 figure was cuban propaganda and is not universally accepted. Miguel Ángel Quevedo who was a publisher and editor of the most popular newspaper bohemia in cuba stated that this was a made up figure in support of the the revolution. see;http://www.economiaparatodos.com.ar/ver_nota.php?nota=657 He admits in this that the figure is made up by his newspaper. This is a good source from the man who helped make these figures and he admits there false. You should keep the 20,000 figure but also mention the lesser figure of less than 2,000 from rummel and others. This guy admitting this, means it is pretty much fact that the figures are wrong, so it should be mentioned that some claim the figure is wrong like the guy who made the figures. The 20,000 figure is not the only reliable source. There should be a range as there are other estimates. Stumink

Stumink, "well sourced" is obviously relative, and your diagnosis of what constitutes "propaganda" is your opinion, but not a fact. Of note, the more important issue when evaluating a claim is not the number of sources, but the reliability (WP:Reliable) of those sources (for instance, I can give you an array of WP:Fringe sources for the moon landing being a hoax, the Holocaust not having occurred, aliens abducting people before anally-probing them etc). Furthermore, when you are dealing with polarizing political issues, it is even more imperative to evaluate the stated agenda of those purporting to have the "real and unreported truth." All you have provided here is a blog reporting on the allegation that before Quevedo committed suicide in 1969, he wrote a last letter confessing to a number of things (which included originating the 20,000 figure) when he was previously a Castro ally. Essentially, the story could be summed up as a guy saying "I lied elaborately before 10 years ago for Castro when I liked him, but this time I am telling the truth against Castro who I now despise before I kill myself" (which is not exactly the best way to garner credibility). Moreover, there is no proof that Quevedo did in fact "invent" the 20,000 figure, and that he wasn't just reporting the commonly held beliefs of many at the time. Now, since Quevedo later became anti-Castro (as many of Fidel's earlier allies did) it is understandable that he would regret assisting in his rise to power, but the 20,000 death total has been commonly reported on by the majority of sources (many U.S.-based, and several the U.S. government themselves) from 1959 to the present (as I have shown). JFK even utilized these figures as a Senator in 1960 and later as a President in 1963. Plus scores of independent researchers then and now have evaluated Batista’s rule and come to the same conclusion that around 20,000 people were killed during his "reign" (which for Latin American dictators of the era is not unique and sadly only around the middle of the pack). Lastly, the "propaganda" claim by Castro political foes seems to imply that Castro and his allies would not have been justified in overthrowing a dictator who had "only" killed 2,000 people instead of 20,000 – implying that somehow Castro derived his supposed 50 year legitimacy from these assumed 18,000 more deaths, when he has never even made this claim.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 20,000 figure is not the only source, so there needs to be a range. I'm sorry but this source proves the 20,000 figure is wrong. I am not saying that you remove it completely, but it needs to be stated that 20,000 is not that universally accepted. The story could be summed by saying some people claim this figure is propaganda. There is a good source here that people claim it to be propaganda. It is really misleading to say that it is the only estimate that batista killed 20,000 when there are good alternatives and there are good sources saying the figure is wrong. There needs to be a range. Say that between 1,000 and 20,000 people were killed. There are sources for both figures. When you have varying reliable sources you use a range like all other kill estimates. You cannot just pick the 20,000 figure and ignore the reliable 1 or 2,000 figures. Have a range. Also please mention what contemporary independent researchers have come to the same conclusion that around 20,000 people were killed. It is referred to as propaganda since Quevedo says it was used to drum up support for revolutionary tribunals (referring to your last sentence). And assuming that the 2,000 were correct surely most deaths were from repressions associated with the Cuban Revolution which was ongoing to some extent during the majority of Batista's dictatorship. So surely Castro's supposed 50 year legitimacy comes from him wanting to overthrow Batista due to Cuba's economic inequality (and therefore tying due reduce poverty), his hatred for US "Imperlialism" (US Corporations) and trying further the cause of Socialist revolution. He certainly would never use the deaths as an excuse (as you correctly mentioned above) and don't think claiming the 20,000 as propaganda implies this at all either (that he needs this as an excuse). How could Castro use the 2,000 or 20,000 deaths as an excuse to start the revolution anyway. It's not like Batista actually killed near the total during the 1 and a half year of his rule that were not interrupted by war. Surely most the deaths were associated with repressing the Cuban Revolution started by Castro in the first place. And regardless surely is rather standard for Communist (although Cuba wasn't communist at the time) countries to use propaganda. Anyway if the 20,000 figure was not invented by this newspaper (as Quevado claims) do have any idea where it may actually comes from? Stumink

Stumink, of course the "20,000" isn't the only source, but it is the figure given the majority of the time by reliable sources. Our threshold is not to include every single opinion on a topic, but the main ones in proportion to their presence in the literature. Very few things in this world are "universally accepted", and that also isn't the barometer by which we include or remove material on Wikipedia. With every historical event you have a wide range of disparate views, and we can’t include them all. As for whether a pre-suicide letter purported to be written by him 43 years ago (1969) and has since been posted on various anti-Castro blogs qualifies as a "good source" here, I think is debatable. Moreover, the figures you are utilizing from Rummel seem to deal with Batista’s time from 1957-1959 ... not his entire 18 years in office (1933-1944 & 1952-1959), which is what the 20,000 deaths purports to address. As for whether Batista’s use of executions was only to stifle Castro, I would point out that a large array of groups were rebelling against Batista from the moment he seized power in 1952 (many of them non-communist or even anti-communist). As for communists use of propaganda, I would point out that all political ideologies and regimes in power rely on and use propaganda (capitalist, socialist, fascist, right-wing, left-wing etc). As for where the figure first originated, I am not sure if anyone knows. I have read countless books on the Cuban Revolution and I have never seen any definitive proof that the figure originated in Bohemia either (although yes, Quevedo supposedly claimed in his pre-suicide note that the number was "invented by the alcoholic Enriquito de la Osa" - not that he invented it as you say). But as Quevedo states in the same pre-suicide letter, "Bohemia was the echo of the street", so it may not be a stretch to conclude that the 20,000 figure was the commonly held figure of the time. In direct relation to this issue of the 20,000 in this article, I am ok with the wording you chose of "thousands" if you feel that allows for more leeway. If so, then this issue may be resolved.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw rummels figures are for 1952-59 actually. see line 739. The range is good as both figures are sourced and there are plenty more sources for the 1 or 2,000 figure. Why wouldn't they post the note. It is good ammunition. Does not make the note less reliable. The guy here is also Anti Batista and would have no reason to be an apologist for him. I mean if the source with the guy who helped spread the figures admitting the figure is false is not enough to discredit the number then nothing would be accepted. I am pretty sure that the 20,000 figure is wrong. Why does no one ever come out with 30,000 or 15,000 figure claims. Usually with the victims of tyrants you get varying estimates unless they actually counted 20,000 bodies which they did not or you would know. The 20,000 figure was clearly made up IMO according to various sources and logic. There are other neutral sources claiming 20,000 is wrong including Rummel. The figure was the echo of the street because of Bohemia is what it claims. Sure people were already rebelling against Batista because he couped the country and he was oppressive. Never the less, it is safe to assume most of the executions would of been in response to the war that plagued almost his entire reign. I have never seen much stating how many Batista killed in his first rule which did no coincide with war or dictatorship. Sure all ideologies use propaganda sometimes. Propaganda can be the truth but communist countries are notorious for propaganda including Cuba with its censorship and it's schooling system which is completely based on marxist ideoligy and accused of political indoctrination. Why do children in Cuba like Che, because they are told to pledge allegiance to him and they are taught to like him. Propaganda? Well this has been resloved and I am content with the way it is. Stumink

Stumink, the commonly reported figure is 20,000, but as I show with some of the references above, you also see 19,000 or even 25,000 from time to time. To the issue of propaganda, I’m not sure I would say that communist countries utilize any more propaganda than capitalist or fascist ones, although tenants of Marxism-Leninism view propaganda as a positive mechanism for building solidarity and unity etc. State-run propaganda is obviously much more overt (and thus easier to spot or ignore), but I am not sure it is necessarily more prevalent than corporate propaganda or government propaganda filtered through sympathetic or colluding private media entities. As for the issue of the figures, if you are satisfied with how it stands currently, so am I.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW when I talk about propaganda, I am referring to propaganda that is untrue. What corporate propaganda or government propaganda in western countries say, will almost certainly have more truth to it than Communist countries. Communist countries use untrue propaganda far more than capitalist countries. Usually communist countries indoctrinate there people and lie a lot, where as capatilst countries tend to be more free and sane and have less need to lie. Communist countries like North Korea and Cuba did literally blame all there problems on supposed US imperialism. Anyway CBA discussing the difference between these ideologies even though capitalism is not really an ideology in the way communism is. Stumink

Stumink / IP 88 (same person), I reverted your --> recent large addition (5K+) to the Legacy section (which has its own article) for an array of reasons. However, you then reverted me under the rationale that it was "valid criticism and praise" and "sourced" so it should stay. Thus, I figured I would outline my rationale further, address your reasoning, and allow you to address my concerns.

[1] - Content-wise, your large addition consists of (a) A line of praise from Che’s close friend Alberto Granado, (b) A line of praise from Fidel Castro, (c) A range of WP:Fringe accusations (absent in all other major biographies) from the polemicist Humberto Fontova who has been rejected previously as a WP:RS on this talk page and does not meet the neutral encyclopedia standard for being a first-hand source for a Wikipedia article per WP:VERIFY see ---> Using Humberto Fontova, (d) An unreferenced online letter to the editor "opinion" essay by an unknown author entitled "Exposing Myths about a Murderer", (e) The negative view of former political prisoner Armando Valladares sourced to a Washington Times piece about the 2008 biopic movie Che, (f) The negative view of Che by Jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera sourced to an online video from Reason TV alleging a "sick love affair between Hollywood and Communism", (g) A negative editorial essay by Johann Hari, (h) A second comment in the Legacy section by Christopher Hitchens who is already sourced once, (i) a whole additional paragraph of criticism by Álvaro Vargas Llosa (who already had several sentences of criticism in the Legacy section), (j) An online article talking about how some Polish politicians wanted to ban images (they didn’t even end up dong it) they saw as "authoritarian", which according to some might have included Che t-shirts.

[2] - Now setting aside that you used bare URL's as references and didn’t even format your references correctly, I believe that most of your additions discussed above are not worthy of inclusion in this article. (a) A comment by Granado might be relevant in the section dealing with his Motorcycle journey, however the praise you mention is already included in Granado’s article and would surely be more relevant to the article on The Motorcycle Diaries (if anywhere), (b) Additional praise from Fidel Castro is unnecessary as it is already included in the article, (c) Fontova’s wide range of polemical accusations sourced to a Mark Humphry blog and FrontPage Magazine do not exist in the majority of peer-reviewed biographies and he has consistently been rejected as a reliable source in this article going back years, (d) Letters to the editor from unknown writers are not reliable references per Wiki policy, (e) The view of Valladares could be relevant for inclusion as long as it was kept brief per WP:Undue and worded objectively, (f) An editorial video entitled "Killer Chic" for Reason TV isn’t probably the best source on objective information (just like a video from Communist Party USA TV entitled "Che the Hero" wouldn’t be), (g) Once again Hari is writing an editorial here of his view, it would be up for you to show how his view is particularly relevant over the thousands of other people who have written their views on Che, (h) We don’t need two comments by Hitchens (whose writings I enjoy personally) on Guevara, as Guevara was not an area that Hitchens specialized in, (i) We already had several sentences of critique by Llosa and more than that would be against WP:Undue, especially since Llosa’s pamphlet (book) on Guevara is fairly short (under 20 pgs) and written for an institute with a political agenda (it’s not a disinterested biography and he is not considered a biographer of Che in the way Anderson, Taibo II or Castaneda are), (j) It's merely trivia that a politician in Poland wanted to ban images they deemed "authoritarian" which might have included Che t-shirts, because it never happened.

[3] - Now, per Wiki policy, would you like to address these concerns and explain why you believe these additions are worth doubling the size of the Legacy section against WP:Summary in an already large article? There are over 40 or so Che biographies and we can’t include everything. What makes this material particularly notable? In addition, why do you believe these additions do not violate WP:Undue, WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV etc? It is up to you to gain editor WP:Consensus on including disputed material and follow policy when it comes to what amounts to WP:Reliable sources (which in some cases such as blogs etc isn’t really even debatable). I would also encourage you to use the talk page search option to see if some of your concerns have already been addressed in the past and previous consensus been reached on not including some of your desired material. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you and hopefully not edit-warring on this.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason why this stuff is in the Legacy section as they are opinions. It doesn't matter if the article from Chris Hani is negative as it is opinion. Would you not accept an article that is completely positive. Why is humberto fontoya opinion not allowed. It is not like he has dedicated his life to the subjuct and is also a cuban exile. His opinion on Che is more reliable than that of people who have never met him like Nelson Mandela. There is nothing wrong with the sources. I sourced newspapers like the ones which have been sourced already in the legacy. Do you only think Che friendly biographies are ok, maybe about his life but this is section is about opinions on che so the POV of the source does not matter. This section is opinion so there is nothing wrong with sourcing Cuban Exiles. They are good sources on his legacy. Also Hitchens comment ought to be mentioned. Even if what i added was too long do not get rid of all of it and sources are not the issue. I have sourced news articles. Chris hani view or Paquito D'Rivera. There views are relevant. Why dont you show me how Jacobo Machover, Stokely Carmichael, Graham Greene or Frantz Fanon view are more relevant.

Humberto Fontoya's views are is good enough as an opinion as cuban exiles are already sourced. Why are nelson mandela and susan sontag more qualified to talk abot che's legacy than humberto fontoya who dedicated his life to writing about che and castro and he also lived in cuba and his family left becuase of castro's regime. Why is he less credible on his legacy than mandela who has never lived in cuba or met che. Or susan sontag a supporter of communism in the 60,s who would later critisize and compare it to fascism in the 80,s. Also susan sontag and hitchens quotes are old and probably out of date as they both went onto criticize communism. Also what is the difference between fontoya critism and Alvaro Vargas Llosa and Jacobo Machover criticism. All claims and opinions. Also how are any of the added critism fringe views. As mentioned in the legacy many cuban exiles hate him. These views that portray che as a bad person are very popular views. Also Llosa critique comes from the Independant institue hardly a "an institute with a political agenda" since it is non-partisna. And as you said it has already sourced so it would qualify under your sourcing guide lines. You also said that Hitchens is not a specialist, but neither is Mandela, Graham Greene or Fanon. I'm pretty sure Fontova is more of specialist than these people since he goes around researching Che from exiles (people who know or have been affected). And you said that Fontova has been repeatedly rejected for us writing Che's biographical info (which may be fair enough) but that doesn't mean his opinion is invalid (legacy is all about opinion). It's not like use Mandela or Sartre's words to write biographical info regading Che just as you wouldn't use Fontova's, but you should be able all of their opinions. Frankly as far as I am concerned Fontova is less biased than people like Mandela or Sartre regarding Che(or in general). Why do you think Fontova hate Che?

Anyway I wanted to expand the legacy section so it had more substance criticism (or for that matter praise like regarding what he actually did not bland emotional sentiment about him). I wanted criticism reagding things like: Wanting to fire Nukes during the Cuban missile crisis, Criticisms of his economic policies, Criticism of his alleged imperialism, Criticism for being Totalitarian, repressive or authoritarian (wanted specific accusation like things regading censorship, lack of free press, opposition to election, banning types music etc), Criticism of brutality (regarding exiles claims), Tbf to it would improve if there was also praises regarding what he did instead what he allegedly stood for. Example would praise of land reform, literacy, being against imperialism etc. Anyway as you said I could i will add the valladeres quote. I also wouldn't mind if I was able to re-add Paquito Riveira quote. Reason TV is a reasonable source since it affiliated to magaine. Also surely a video is best way of sourcing a quote. It is proof he said that. Also why on earth would Granado's quote be more relevant in The Motorcycle Diaries it has nothing to with the journey it is about his legacy (hence why I put it in the legacy section) and at least Granado knows Che personally unlike someone like Mandela. Also sorry if I repeated myself above Stumink

Stumink, (I apologize for the length, but I want to address all of your points) our job as Wikipedia editors is not to include all information on a subject, or even all opinions that we can find in online letters to the editor on a topic or historical figure. Our task as editors is to first read the mainstream reliable and peer-reviewed material on a given topic (preferably by disinterested biographers, historians and researchers without specific agendas), and then do our best to capture and recreate the tone and essence of such sources, with a limited number of anecdotes and notable points of information. Thus, someone reading an article on Che Guevara on Wikipedia shouldn't really find that much of a different take than if they picked up one of Che’s main biographies. We are here to regurgitate the record, not to correct, revise, or expose it based on what we think the "real truth" really is. This is a fundamental tenant of Wikipedia I have learned over the past 5 years, and one of the main reasons this endeavor works.

Now I am not sure what you consider "friendly biographies", but there are several peer-reviewed biographies of Che that have been analyzed in academic journals for their accuracy. I would recommend Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson, Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda, or Guevara, Also Known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II. All contain an array of both positive and negative aspects in their portrayals, unlike Fontova's "Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots who idolize him" (which I have read). This is because there are around 100 books on Che Guevara, and Fontova's synopsis severely differs with ALL of them (Fontova proudly acknowledges this fact, and like most historical negationists - prides himself on being the only one with the previously unreported and usually unreferenced "truth"). Fontova (---> pictured here on c-span wearing his crossed out Che t-shirt) has previously described himself as being ---> "incorrigibly incorrect" on his own website; and often reports on unverifiable events whose only source is himself. As someone who has tried to track down sourcing for some of his more "exceptional claims" per WP:Verify, it is frustrating as he'll often send you in a circle by citing his own book, which will then cite his own web essay, which will not have any citations at all. There are also dozens of unsavory quotes that Fontova exclusively attributes to Guevara, which do not appear in any other publication before 2005 when he began writing on the topic (38 years after Che's death). Predictably these quotes are now parroted by an array of writers who dislike Guevara, but their original sourcing usually leads back to Fontova, with no original primary source given. But as the Wiki policy states:

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

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

Moreover, stylistically Fontova (whose work I am very familiar with and have read) writes web editorials calling Guevara a "Guerrilla Doofus and Murdering Coward" in the title. The difference between Fontova and Machover or Llosa, is that they do not write in a bombastically polemic and editorialized style, while referring to those people whom disagree with them as "dingbats", "moonbats", "useful idiots", "imbeciles", "morons", and "boobs" etc. Fontova’s near weekly anti-Che editorials are written solely on hyper-partisan right-wing blogs and websites for the purpose of attacking Guevara, and explicitly exclude all information and context that is contrary to that narrative. Another tactic Fontova employs is to take an accepted fact about Guevara, and then lace it with a barrage of sophomoric insults and innuendo - unbecoming of anyone who would be utilized as an encyclopedic reference. For instance, Fontova's barrage of hyperbole leads him to specifically describe Guevara as an "assassin", "sadist", "bumbler", "fool", and "whimpering-sniveling-blubbering coward" who is "revered by millions of imbeciles." Other descriptions that Fontova often lobs against Guevara is that he was "shallow", "boorish", "epically stupid", "a fraud", a "murdering swine", an "intellectual vacuum", and an "insufferable Argentine jackass ---> article. Now admittedly, a fair number of objective criticisms can be lobbed against Che Guevara (and are in the present article), without having to frame them in an overtly subjective manner with large doses of profanity, ad hominems and sarcasm. Fontova is literally the textbook epitome of violating WP:NPOV and more importantly, is not considered one of the "main scholars and specialists on the issue" per Wiki policy. As a blogger Fontova has done all of the following:   uploaded ---> spoof mocked posters of Che,   posted pictures of a dead Guevara coupled with the offer that we ---> "celebrate the picture above!",   made fun of Che's daughter Aleida Guevara for being overweight by saying that she ---> "oinks" instead of speaks,   uploaded a t-shirt with President Barack Obama's face morphed as Guevara with the title ---> "I’ve Chenged",   posted an execution photo of Guevara with the description ---> "Murdering, Cowardly, Bumbling Swine",   referred to himself as a ---> "raving crackpot" in relation to his work with the "No Che Day" campaign - held on what he describes as "the glorious anniversary of Che's whacking",   referred to the day Guevara was killed as ---> "a GLORIOUS Anniversary!!",   and lamented that it was ---> "Too bad Cuba had a Batista instead of a Pinochet in 1958" - who in his words (with relation to Pinochet's suppression of opposition) "managed the messy business with (only) 3,000 dead" - which is ironically about 2,800 more deaths than the anti-Che Free Society Project' even attributes to Guevara. All of these issues would disqualify him from being used as an authoritative Encyclopedic source on the general topic of Che Guevara.

As for the issue of Cuban exiles, of course they are not excluded altogether; in fact the author Machover currently in the Legacy section is one, as is Valladares now who we agreed on for inclusion. However, simply being a Cuban exile also doesn’t deem one worthy of inclusion either. To the point of Hitchens, it would be against WP:Undue to use him for comment more than once, and the comment you wanted to include is simply him stating that he heard a rumor that Che wanted to nuke the U.S. and that if so, he didn’t agree with it. To that specific issue, Guevara is on record as saying that he felt Cuba would have been justified in using nuclear weapons if attacked by the U.S. during the missile crisis, in the same way they had been at the Bay of Pigs (and the article makes note of this in the appropriate section). In relation to the issue of Jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera, he didn’t leave Cuba until 13 years after Che was dead (1980), and around 20 years from the time he claims he had a run in with him. So it might be a stretch to say that Che convinced him it was time to leave the country. This is why the source itself is important, as we don’t know the ways that Reason TV (a libertarian outfit which opposes nearly everything Che believed in) edited their editorialized video on “Hollywood’s Sick Love Affair with Communism and ‘Killer Chic’”. With regards to some of the other notable figures you mentioned, Sartre personally knew Guevara, and Mandela and Sontag et al are included to show how a wide range of figures promoted Guevara’s status as a symbol of revolution after his death (which is the primary area in which his legacy lives on). One of the areas that can make discussing Che’s legacy difficult is you have Che the literal person, and Che the symbol, with the two of them being intertwined and overlapped at times. As for Llosa’s Independent Institute, of course they have a "partisan" agenda (They explicitly say it is to "boldly advance peaceful, prosperous, and free societies"), as Llosa does, which is for libertarianism, unregulated capitalism and free markets etc. They are not without a political agenda simply by means of having the word "Independent" in their name. As for expanding the Legacy section, first remember there is an entire separate article for his Legacy, and some of your desired additions may already be present there. Our brief summary here in this article is only supposed to cover a few of the main points toward that effect and not be a full account. With regards to some of the additional points you mention, I would look for accounts in the main biographies of Che (Anderson, Taibo II, Castaneda etc) for a more neutral and objective take on those areas of potential criticism.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara wanted to fire Nukes at a America regardless if they attacked Cuba or not according to his own words to further socialism. If he had his way, his legacy might of been slightly more negative. Sure Jean-Paul Sartre met him but IMO i don't think praise from him is necessarily a good thing. Pinochet killed 3,000 people right but he ran a country for 16 years, where as Che ran a prison for 1 year. Not a fair comparison. He is comparing Pinochet to Castro. Most estimates put Castro's Cuba political executions between 5 and 20 thousand in total and thousands in the 60's. People also attribute deaths in prisons and the deaths of boat people fleeing from the oppression of Castro's regime. Estimates range between 20 and 100 thousand dead. Pinochet may have actually killed up to 10,000.

I was never asking to use Fontova's stuff for biographical stuff, so why keeping mentioning POV argument. Legacy is about opinion. POV doesn't matter. Fontova's hatred does not come from nothing just like the other exiles. He believes his father was killed by the regime. Just because he says all these brash words does not mean he is overly bias. Where does he get his stories from? Other exiles. It is hard to prove that these are true as they happened 50 years ago. So you cannot use these for the biographical part. The likely hood is that much of the stories Fontoya says are true or at least have basis to them. They come from other exiles. So maybe from Fontova's perspective of what he knows or believes about Che would completely justify his insults. Considering much of what Fontoya says, regarding what Che did may actually be true. He is not actually that biased. Is he more biased than the prominently left wing people who praise him in the legacy merely because of they have a soft spot for revolution. Most of them have never met Che or lived under his rule. There quotes are emotion and have no substance or detail. They say he stood for freedom but what evidence do the have to say that. They are biased. Any way the stuff i added from Fontoya was not overly brash or critical. It was claims like that he opposed elections, rock 'n' roll music and supported the crushing the Hungarian revolution. This stuff is hardly overly brash and is probably true, based on what i already know about him. He did support the soviets and the Hungarian government etc. He never held elections and there are hints that he was not a big fan of rock. This stuff is not overtly subjective, perhaps unlike some of his other stuff. I don't care if Fontova's there or not but his opinion is more credble than the idealists who never met him or lived under his rule and just claim he stood for freedom. He is an exile who lived under Castro's rule and a dedicated writer on the subject. POV does not matter in opinions. All i am saying is he has more right to talk about Che than the people in the praise section. The praise from the idealists or revolutionaries who support him should of course stay.

Anyway enough talk on fontova, regarding D'Rivera, you claim it would be a stretch to say that he left because of Che but D'Rivera says that his decision to leave cuba was sparked by meeting Che. So from your perspective and as far as you are concerned Che's meeteing did convince him to leave because he said it. How can you challenge his words. Any way does it matter if reason TV is libertarian. This info is opinion. Also the whole point of the source is to show what Paquito said and this source has it on video saying this stuff. This source is brilliant, as it proves he said this. There is nothing wrong with the source. It proves D'Rivera said this stuff. I said The Independent Institute has no agenda (ie not biased) as it is self claimed non partisan and has contributors from the left and the right. You have already sourced this website anyway. Sontag and Hitchen's quote are from the 60's and they both changed there views regarding communism. I am skeptical if they would have believed there own quotes by end of there lives. Any way I know there is legacy of Che page but i think on this page there should be one more short praise line with more substance and detailed praise as opposed to the usual he believed in freedom. Also there ought to be another short criticism regarding his alleged anti freedom views or actions. Like censorship or no tolerance to opposition etc. Also Granado quote would be good here as it is about his legacy and he new him very well. Stumink

Stumink, Guevara’s desire to "fire nukes" at the U.S. isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. For instance, Che is on record as telling a reporter for the London Daily Worker in November 1962: "If they attack, we shall fight to the end. If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression. But we haven’t got them, so we shall fight with what we’ve got." [as quoted in Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara (1998), by Jorge G. Castaneda, p. 231]. Moreover, one year earlier on August 8th 1961 during --> his speech to the ministerial meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council (CIES), in Punta del Este, Uruguay - Guevara stated: "Cuba hopes that her children will see a better future, and that victory will not have to be won at the cost of millions of human lives destroyed by the atomic bomb." Thus, the degree to which be believed that the U.S. might also preemptively use nuclear weapons against Cuba isn’t clear. After all, as the current article already states, Che was particularly horrified in 1959 upon visiting Hiroshima, Japan – where the U.S. had in fact detonated an atomic bomb. So it is not clear to what extent he believed the U.S. would be willing to do the same again against Cuba. As for whether Jean Paul Sartre's praise of Guevara is a "good thing", that is up to the reader to decide. It is however notable, as Sartre was a leading intellectual at the time and had a large influence over the New Left and especially French intellectuals with who Che became a symbol of resistance (especially Paris via 1968). Yes Legacy is about opinion in some ways, but as an Encyclopedia we also have the responsibility to limit ourselves to reliable sources which are not openly and overtly revisionist and which contain extraordinary claims not found in the mainstream material. This is why Wikipedia excludes fringe theories from main articles (unless the articles are on those fringe theories in question). Thus, George W. Bush's article is not laced with "9/11 being an inside job", or Barack Obama’s article with him being "a Kenyan-born Muslim" etc. Sure, web articles and editorials can be found with this material, and books even exist about these topics (some people even devote their lives to "exposing these real truths and the idiots who don't believe them") – but those views are considered fringe and omitted from their main articles. Plus to correct your statement, Fontova's father was not killed by the Castro regime; in fact he is still alive today with him in Louisiana. Fontova did however have a cousin die in state custody from a supposed heart attack that Fontova alleges was really instead from Cuban state brutality, but Che himself wasn’t responsible for the cousin’s death specifically. As for Fontova being "an exile who lived under Castro’s rule", that is true technicaly, although he left at 7 years old in 1961 and has not set foot in Cuba (as he himself states) in the 51 years since. As for banning Rock n Roll, that actually occurred under Batista in 1957 (per the Encyclopedia of Radio, pg 690) so why Fontova selectively attributes this to Guevara is unclear. With regards to the Soviets and Hungarians, Che had both a pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet phase in his later life (with the missile crisis being the demarcation line). As the article states, he criticized the Soviet Union starting in 1963 about as often as he did the U.S. and favored China in the Sino-Soviet split.

With regards to D'Rivera, in his own 2005 biography My Sax Life: A Memoir on pg 155-156, he briefly speaks about his first and only time of meeting Che, and it basically amounts to Che asking him what he did, and D'Rivera saying he was a musician, and then Che jokingly asking what he actually did for a living as others laughed around them (as if to belittle his "hobby"). In the book D'Rivera calls him an arrogant jackass from this, but doesn’t speak about this being some transformational moment or convincing him to flee the country 20 years later. In relation to the Independent institute, of course they have an agenda, as all institutes do. That is not to say theirs is bad or wrong, but it does exist. As for Sontag and Hitchens, those quotes came from recent books and I am not aware of any retractions they had since making these remarks. Are you? Certainly if they retracted this sentiment later we could remove the comments, but their inclusion was really to capture the prevailing sentiment in the late 60’s and 70’s after Che’s death and how notable individuals viewed him at the time, which is what was responsible for some of his popularity in the popular culture (rightly or wrongly) as an iconic figure of rebellion and revolution. Such praise (that you find empty) was very prevalent, and helped shape the public opinion about Che to many around the world. Now, obviously his critics and detractors think such adulation was unwarranted, ignorant, misplaced etc (and we include that view in the legacy), but it did exist and thus is noted.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Che thought about the nuke problem more than what I may have implied, but he did say what I mentioned. I am sure Che could see that the US would not use nukes against Cuba when considering the Japs. The situations in Japan and Cuba were vastly different. The US chose not to use them in Korea and there was far more chance and usefulness in using them then. Wiping out an entire Chinese army in North Korea or helping end WW2 is a lot more useful than wiping out loads of civilians over Cuba. He probably wanted to destroy America because of there supposed imperialism and also because Che really overrates socialism. He may of been horrified by Hiroshima but he did imply he wanted to use nukes on the US regardless. Anyway, CBA discussing the Cuban missile crisis.

As for what I said about Sartre, I was in no way implying you should get rid of his opinion. It was just a personal criticism from me about his moronic politics. He should definitely stay as he actually knew him.

Also Fontova's views are not fringe or extraordinarily ridiculous. "exposing these real truths and the idiots who don't believe them" cannot the considered a fringe view like the Obama or Bush thing. Disliking Castro's Cuba is something the US government has done for 50 years and many millions of people in the world including in Cuba dislike Che and many would consider him a murderer. There are clearly celebrities who like Che for idiotic reasons aswell. With regards to Fontova's father, I meant to say his cousin. Who he believes was killed by the regime. Fontova hates the whole regime as well as Castro. I don't think he personally believes Che was responsible. He is still an exile and he may not remember his life in Cuba that well but i am sure his older family do and that may be where he got his distaste for Cuba. There will be a good reason, why his family left like all exiles. I know Che went on to criticize the Soviets after 1963 but in 1956 I think he was not much of a critic of the Soviets and he did visit Hungary. Batista may have banned Rock but that's becuase he was an oppressive dictator and that aint no reason to keep it banned. Regarding Fontova's selectivity, he is writing in opposition to Castro's Cuba, so he picks there faults and ignores Batista. His books are not about Batista. He probably does not like Batista as well. My position on Fontova remains the same but I couldn't care less if he were included or not.

All I am saying, regarding the Independent institute, is not that it is not overly partisan. It is reliable to source. Everything has an agenda including most newspapers. Saying agenda implies bias, so when I said it had no agenda, I am really saying it is not noticeably biased. With regards to D'Rivera, it may be a stretch to for you to think Che's meeting sparked his wish to depart Cuba but he clearly said it, so as far as anyone is concerned it is fact that his meeting with Che sparked his desire to leave.

As for the Sontag and Hitchens quotes, I am saying that it would be better to get emotional quotes about Che's death from people who continued to like him. I could probably find something regarding there thoughts on Che later in there lives as I have a feeling they may have been less friendly about Che. The quotes do not need to be changed but it would not be overly difficult replace them. Also as I said some more meaningful praise ought to be included and another criticism regarding his apparent anti freedom views or actions. The legacy section is fine the way it is but this would improve it. Stumink