Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Is it possible to sum up your versions?

Rather than the constant reverting and such, can both sides please just state precisely what they'd like, followed by a quick explanation of why, or what they feel to be the key points?
I realize you've been arguing back and forth quite a bit about this, but it gets hard after a while to see precisely what it is that each person actually wants to say.Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gtadoc's version

In the months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of officials and political and ideological opponents from the previous regime.

• I want to keep the wording as neutral as possible and at the same time not blanket label everyone as deserving to have been killed or imprisoned.
• I want to avoid the term war criminals as I think it could apply to both sides and does little for the article's neutrality.
• I would like to point out, but will refrain from for the sake of neutrality, that as supreme prosecutor he also ordered the extrajudicial execution and imprisonment of an unknown number of prisoners of conscience and people of ideologies that he disliked, following the motto "if in doubt, shoot". He also was instrumental in setting up Cuba's first political/social Gulag. I don't, however, think these particulars belong in the intro, but perhaps somewhere else in the article.
• I would not object to including wording to portraying that some contend that those tried were done so in spite of their innocence or because guilt by associate and the contention that those tried were suspected of being criminals in some sense or another from a recently deposed regime.

Gtadoc 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen's version

My preferred version was the featured version, praised by massive consensus, and approved by experts on the matter off-site before Jimbo arrived. Without the distortions and woeful attempts to misrepresent the immense historical complexity of Cuba 1959-65 in two sentences.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps theres an easy way to do this; but I went all the way back in the history to look at that version and it didn't claim that they were all war criminals, it mentioned that some were accused war criminals, others political dissonents, others previous officials, etc. and they weren't given proper trials. I think it was ironic that in the intro it said that Che was not given a proper trial, yet we're now refusing to mention that he didn't give the same to his victims either. In any event, I think just removing the wording that says they were all war criminals will solve the pov problem. Fmehdi 05:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. None of what you mention has ever been in the lead of this article until Jimbo's intervention. Why not? Because it would be a POV, reductionist and wrong to do so.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just looked at the June 2006 version, so what isn't true? You are right though, the lead was different, it focused more on the Che as a martyr outlook, saying he was killed w/o trial, then the main body revealed the rest. I was wondering why you were trying to include in the lead only one part of what was in the main body of the previous text? It seems that if it is going to be in the lead (I don't know where that was decided, but it seems it was at some point) it should have all the perspectives just as it did in the main body of the FA. Fmehdi 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention a couple of points here:

• 1. "War crimes" would seem to be a less than idoneous usage to describe what the individuals in question were accused of if one accepts the definition of the term in War Crimes -- WP and War Crimes -- EB

• 2. Rather than trying to derive a version of the controverted section of the Intro amenable to all current editors from past versions of this article, might we perhaps look instead at some secondary sources of "good repute" for inspiration? For example, in his book The History of Cuba(2005), Clifford L. Staten writes:

Many of Batista's military and civilian leaders were given public show trials. Hundreds were executed and the government confiscated their properties. (Source: "The History of Cuba" by Clifford L. Staten, Paperback: 176 pages, Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (August 11, 2005), page 90. ISBN-10: 1403962596, ISBN-13: 978-1403962591.)

Couldn't Staten's dispassionate (and, to the best of my knowledge, accurate) description of the events in question serve as a point of departure for us to re-write the disputed section of the Intro? -- Polaris999 18:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<other name>'s version

<If anyone else has a version, please put it here>

I prefer this one:

• In the months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of political opponents, including officials of the deposed Batista regime, often without due process of law.

It's fair as it states the victims were political opponents, and that some of these opponents were Batisa regime officials. I think it's also important to mention the victims were executed without due process of law. In fact, some victims, such as Col. Cornelio Rojas, were executed on Guevara's orders with no trial at all. But I'll not push it....

BTW, here is youtube video footage of Rojas summary execution.

--C.J. Griffin 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would kind of like to see something like :Following the successful revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the incarceration and execution of hundreds, if not thousands of civilians, some of whom were accused of crimes perpetrated by the previous regime.

Just my thoughts; I think it kind of includes all positions. And it also mentions that those on trial were not military personel but rather civilians. I was trying to think of a way to add that at least some were innocent people caught up in the violence but couldn't figure out how to do it while sounding neutral, perhaps someone else can try. Maybe also something about how it may have laid the groudwork for future oppression? I'm also new to this discussion so take it for what its worth :) Fmehdi 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made this point before; "due process of law" is possibly a biased term. The due process of law likely alluded to is one probably not accepted by Cuba at the time. Also, in the aftermath of the overthrow of the previous regime the Communists were acting under Revolutionary Theory which would allow such actions. This means that the killings took place under due process of law, just not the laws which most people (including me) would proscribe to. However, if the rules then allowed Guevara to order the summary execution of "enemies of the people" then he was not conflicting with the law. LessHeard vanU 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case it should be noted that way; you're right, but I think it needs to be mentioned your way so the reader knows at least it wasn't with what we would consider a lawful process but with what may have been considered lawful at the time. Though, to be fair, even slavery was considered lawful for a long time, but immoral even so. Fmehdi 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If the term "...without due process of law." was replaced by "according to Marxist Revolutionary theory." with the same refs, etc. it would indicate to the reader that it was not done in accordance to international law, but under the terms then applicable. I think that is pretty neutral. LessHeard vanU 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But completely false. Marxist Revolutionary theory had nothing to do with the post revolution executions nor Guevara's spell in La Cabana, which took place when Manuel Urrutia was President, and when the government was headed by liberals. The Cuban revolution wasn't a Marxist revolution - and the executions were no more or less lawful in Cuba than the executions of Nazi collaborators in France in 1945, or the executions of Baathists in Iraq. C.J. Griffith discusses the execution of the Santa Clara Police Chief Cornelio Rojas, shot by revolutionary troops having been allowed to give the firing order, whilst the city was on fire during two days of fighting in the final battle of the revolution. That's what happens in a war against a regime, whether its the Taliban, the Baathists, France 1945 or the Batista regime.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Zleitzen in thinking that we should avoid excessively highlighting in the lead this issue that seems not to arise in other encyclopedic histories. However a brief neutral statement seems appropriate, with the arguments on both sides expanded to the extent necessary for npov in the "Cuba" section. The sentence at present has the "war criminals" assertion which is obviously contested:

Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of suspected war criminals from the previous regime.

My suggestion is that this should be made more open, with detail going in the relevant section:

Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions of hundreds of people associated with the previous regime.

That attempts to cover civilians and innocents. "Political opponents" may be true of many, but doesn't really fit Batista's secret police. .. dave souza, talk 10:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Che oversaw the execution of around 300 people were widely acknowledged to have committed atrocities under the Batista dictatorship. There weren't "thousands" nor were those executed "innocents." Due process of law was served, as the law of the time was revolutionary law, and the trials were held in public, on a democratic basis, with large numbers of Cuban workers and farmers delivering judgment. (Source: "Fidel: The Untold Story," a documentary by Estela Bravo, which includes admission by former a CIA leader that the people executed were criminals, murderers and rapists, and that many were associated with or belonged directly to the CIA.) Redflagflying 16:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that numerous other sources say the opposite; in particular there was no rule of law (as could be expected of the time, for example the trials were often in the middle of the night) and criminals were lumped together with successful businessmen and accusations simply flung around until a judgement was pronounced. But, since we can't say it that way...something in between...Gtadoc 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are these "numerous other sources"? List them. Redflagflying 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just read the previous versions of the article, its already sourced in the body about the executions (and at some points in the lead). Gtadoc 05:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip Agee calls bullshit. Redflagflying 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good for him. Next? Gtadoc 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be sound policy to make non-judgmental statements like: " Guevara was assigned [by whom?] the role of "supreme prosecutor", overseeing the trials and executions, not always with due process, of (approximate number, according to -source-) people, of which (number, source) were associated with the previous regime as (capacity, source)." I understand this is a bit complicated and requires some research, but it may be worth the trouble... There is little doubt in my mind that the current text is a political statement, not a historian's dispassionate rendering. I therefore believe it should be amended.

ThufirHawat 14:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor" as understood under Revolutionary Theory, overseeing the trials and executions of people suspected by the new Cuban Government to be complicit with the previous regime, criminals and anti-revolutionaries.

Probably a bit wordy, but seems sufficiently neutral, indicating the possible innocence of some of those executed and giving an indication to the morals under which Guevara felt he was acting.

Duryodana 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have references? Also "was assigned" is weasel wording. Who assigned him? And all quotations need specific citations. --Mattisse 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'd like to note the one thing you're all missing: the gross understatement of the sentence in saying "hundreds" of people when it has been recorded to be at least in the thousands, and it insinuates only people who supported the previous regime were arrested, when soon after that thousands were arrested and killed for anything that was against the new gov. in any way. I will not offer any sources for this, because I myself am Cuban and had family members who did not support either Batista or Castro killed by Che Guevara and am not a true member of Wikipedia and therefore would not have equal say in the first place, and I am ashamed of the fact that sources are requested for any anti-Che stance but not to defend any pro-Che stance, and how other "sources" listed already have authors who are biased, whether liberal and ignoring his atrocities or conservative and ignoring any positives. What I'm trying to promote is a balanced look at Che, not making him out to be a 20th century messiah, but certainly not making him look as bad as Hitler, that'll let people choose their own stance, not promote the favorite ideas of Che, good or bad. Of course, the fact that so many more ignorant people support Che than Hitler does make it a bit more likely to have some unfairly sympathetic bias. Please just don't sugar coat or mud sling this twisted yet influential individual any more than has already been done by idiots wearing shirts with his face on it and not knowing who he is or pundits yelling how he was a drug addled homicidal maniac. Please be an actual example of "fair and balanced"? For the children?65.12.233.213 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

General Discussion

It is most interesting to look at the icon status that Ernesto Guevara has received. Even in these discussions he is affectionatley called by his nickname Che, and not as Guevara. If you truly want this to be an encyclopedia entry, you must get beyond your hate or love for him as a symbol and look a the facts of his life and assemble all of them that properly portray him. This is difficult to do fairly since so much of his "media life" is about the hype of promoting socialism,violent overthrow and ruthless behavior that is supposed to be better for all. He is truly a student of Machivelli, but only selectively, dismissing Discorsi and other civil process in favor of dictatorial rule. His tactics are clearly of suppression thru fear, in fact it is a great travesty that the article does not destribe him in the most true terms. "Ernesto Guevara is the most popular terrorist of all time, he combined his tactics with media appeal and justification in the "ends" for the means he chose" In your desire to remain neutral, the introduction clearly portrays Ernesto Guevara not as the man he was but the image he wished to foster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.58.124 (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--I think that in the looking over both the great and possibly horrible things that Che has done that we need to remember the environment that these events took place in. All of this happened right after a revolution and neither sided was innocent. whether the executed were murderers and rapists or innocent bystanders, we need to look at what other leaders have done in the past. The United states charged blatantly and violently into Vietnam and Iraq and twisted the stories to fit their needs. Group mentality is a powerful thing. And it has driven "proud" american soldiers to murder innocents as well. Fogar399 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, by Humberto Fontova" SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED ON THIS PAGE. It is right wing drivel. Would you include holocaust denial material on a page about the Holocaust ? How about thoughts from the "Flat Earth Society" on the page about the World ? I have read every single book in print in reference to Che Guevara (Including Fontova's) and his book is pure unadulterated unfounded crap.

• I think we should seriously consider page protection until we get this worked out.
• I know this format is a bit screwy, but I think it'll help to address what each side wants. Particularly helpful for less-involved editors. (Makes getting an outside opinion a bit easier without ignoring someone's desires entirely) Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I don't particularly like the idea of, for example, specifically naming homosexuals as his victims, even if it's true. It isn't that killing gays is good or anything; I just don't see the need to highlight any specific group. (which is why I preferred "for political and social reasons". It doesn't single one group out)Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I understand this viewpoint. But in reflecting on this a bit, I now think that in the interest of having more information about his beliefs and actions included in the article, any group of people that was targeted should be mentioned, whether it be capitalists, homosexuals, or any other group (provided that all such statements are properly sourced). Knowing who Che Guevara executed helps shed insight on his beliefs, which I think should be one of the aims of this article. --DavidGC 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to avoid explicitly using terms like "war criminals", especially "suspected war criminals". Like "terrorist", it's a word that's best to try to avoid unless it's specifically necessary. What's more, it shouldn't be used to describe all of those killed unless it applies to every single person killed, and "suspected war criminals" tends to beg the question, "who suspected them? An international body, or Estrada?" That said, there still may be some wiggle room. For example, it may be possible to come up with a phrasing which includes some of the actual roles mentioned in Zleitzen's reference quote. Bladestorm 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason for the phrase "suspected war criminals" to be included. The citation quite clearly states this and while anybody reading the article in depth will have the context explained, anybody skimming it will be totally oblivious to any weighting in the argument provided this particular incident is not allowed to dominate the lead. I've already pointed out that if this is to be included then the lead needs to be balanced with other events at a similar granularity. As it stands we are slowly seeing this section grow to assume an importance out of balance with the rest of the lead. I see we now have "...suspected officials from and members of..." which, aside from being ugly prose, is redundant: officials from the regime must surely be members of it. And what exactly is the reference next to "dictator" telling us apart from the fact we want one of our FAs to look piss poor by citing the Concise EB? Yomangani^talk 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Yomangani. POV terms shouldn't be used just because of one source as it slants a casual reader's opinion. John Smith's 10:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm ok if it doesn't say this, but it can substitute the phrase with something more general, vague, or encompassing, as that would not be accurate per the source. I personally think the phrase used by the source is perfectly fine, and valid, for that was the reason they were on trial--suspected war crimes. Just being an official of the ex regime, or being an opponent is not what they were on trial for, per the source.Giovanni33 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the source is one that says one thing, and two or three others say another...well why should the more extreme one be the one that wins out? Other sources state they weren't even really on trial, just killed, but I don't think we should just say that either. It seemed perfectly neutral without adding the term 'war criminals' to describe regular people (even some kids for g sake!) I don't think it should be generalizing like that when clearly it wasn't so.Fmehdi 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara is dead. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.29.82.126 (talk) 17:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

--I do not fully understand how wikipedia editing works, but this discussion seems to overall be about innacuracies in the article. I found this source and thought it sounded most unreliable- "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, by Humberto Fontova" It would be nice if someone who better understood wikipedia would look into this source for its reliability and delete the information associated with it if so needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

--CORRECTION Under Capture and Execution, the text reads "Felix Rodriguez, the CIA asset, ordered.." ASSET should be changed to agent Garigolf 13.01 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.85.19 (talk)

--Dianoz 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC):Dianoz Can someone plase make a criticism section and move such quotes as this one:

Author Christopher Hitchens, who was a socialist and a supporter of the Cuban revolution in the 1960s but has since changed his views, summarised Guevara's legacy thus: "Che's iconic status was assured because he failed. His story was one of defeat and isolation, and that's why it is so seductive. Had he lived, the myth of Che would have long since died."[85]

It's biast to end an article with such opinions. Someone "could" say the same thing about Caesar, Spartacus (if we take the movie interpretation of history), or Terry Fox. And please stop the bickering and unlock the page.

I've drafted a wider rewrite of the lead at Talk:Che_Guevara/rewrite, in which I've attempted to focus attention away from the single controversial sentence and bring in some general discussion of his life at the same level as the role as "supreme prosecutor". I believe that it can all be cited from the article if necessary, but I haven't loaded the lead with citations as they really shouldn't be necessary if the detail is covered in the article proper. There is discussion of his successes and failures and character traits. Most of the changes are expansions to what were existing points, but I have cut back a few redundant words and phrases (most of which had crept in since the article was promoted).

Some points about it:

• The quote about his "aggressive quality" comes from Castro, so is nice to use in the lead on the "anti" side of the argument.

Might you perhaps take a few moments to read the topic Paragraph_in_urgent_need_of_a_re-write that appears some paragraphs higher up on this same Talk page and provides important information about this quote and its context? Thank you -- Polaris999 05:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've used "members" rather than "suspected war criminals" in our favourite sentence, as

1. any "suspected war criminals" would undoubtedly be classed as members of the previous regime
2. "suspected" (as Bladestorm pointed out above) begs the question as to who they were suspected by. If it is (as it is) by the new regime then it is hardly a neutral assessment;
3. The reference source clearly states "suspected war criminals" so anybody that wishes to analyse the use of that word in the lead can see what is written;
4. "members" is neutral enough (hopefully) to encompass both "innocent victims" and "war criminals". It doesn't make a judgement other than a broad classification.
5. Within the larger context of the rewritten lead it doesn't skew the judgement of the reader one way or the other. We have plenty of examples of his character, successes and failures without needing to fight over whether this neutral wording is neutral enough.

• I've left out any mention of the Cuban missile crisis, Bay of Pigs and various other events where I'm unsure of the extent or importance of his involvement. Bearing in mind this should be a summary of the article, I think any case for inclusion of other events would need to argue for expansion of the detail in which they are covered in the main body.
• The first citation is missing as it references a named ref in the infobox (so will work in the article proper).

I believe that it is NPOV as written, and would like to get broad agreement to use it in the article. Any major objections need to be sorted out beforehand, but any minor objection can be thrashed out once we have removed the disputed tag. Yomangani^talk 11:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the rewrite, and Polaris's point above regarding Paragraph_in_urgent_need_of_a_re-write encapsulates the problems on this talk page. Your interjection of an out of context Castro quote to the lead is a massive and obvious distortion of the quote itself. What people have done here since arriving in Jimbo's wake is distort and misrepresent reliable historical records, either to force some POV on the page, or to mediate some phoney dispute with good intentions. And when these distortions have been challenged, people have been falsely characterised as having "a pro-Guevara" slant, and the issue has been falsely claimed to be a POV dispute between "two sides". This isn't a POV dispute between two sides. And myself, Polaris and others do not have a "pro-Guevara slant" here. It is about having an accurate article. Since Jimbo's intervention, this formerly highly rated article has gained the air of a shoddy selective opinion piece. No more evident than the proposed use of the Castro quote in the lead, I'm afraid. (For what its worth - I added it to the legacy section of the article in the first place, much to my regret seeing as how it is being distorted now) -- Zleitzen^(talk) 09:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the rewrite either, but you have to face the fact that since the visitation of Jimbo in his role as "ordinary editor" his important "fact" has been inserted in the lead and looks like it is going to stay there no matter how much you kick and scream about it (and, the way it is going, it seems destined to be expanded to explain in graphic detail the reasoning behind the choice of each word in the sentence). With that in mind, and as nobody else seemed interested in doing anything other than rewording "the killings", I tried to draft a lead with some balance against that single incident. With regard to the Castro quote, if we believe that the average reader is going to be unable to see it in context of reckless audacity and think that it implies ruthlessness (which is right next to it in the lead so would be redundant) or randomly violent we can drop it from the lead, but more importantly if we believe that, then what the hell is it still doing in the article? I wish all my urgent projects were as urgent as that urgently needed rewrite. Anyway, I shall remove this from my watchlist now and look forward to its appearance at WP:FAR or WP:RFAR. Have fun. Yomangani^talk 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Castro quote in the article? There's a big difference between having a selective quote within a summary of various opinions in the final section, compared with having it isolated in the lead. I think this article should go to WP:FAR and WP:RFAR, because it has been hijacked and destabilised by Jimbo Wales, and its value and credibility is diminishing as a result. I also suggest that Jimbo go to the featured version in Spanish and do the same as it is far less critical than ours and always has been. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for the version of the most disputed sentence at Talk:Che_Guevara/rewrite. I happen to have first-hand knowledge from unimpeachable (but personal, and therefore unusable) sources of a number of entirely inoffensive people who fell to our "supreme prosecutor" for no other reason than that they prospered under the conditions of life then extant. Killing them was like killing rabbits of a field you've roped off to turn into a garden-- their "offense" was simply that they'd successfully adapted to the previous lay of the land. If they were killed because they were not deemed an acceptable part of the newly favored use of the land, at least be honest and simply refer to them as "members of the previous" system. To imply they were all "war criminals", as the current lead does, makes us look foolish. This change should be made immediately while the rest is debated (I would favor mention of the Missile Crisis in the lead-- it is of significance to the entire world, not just Cuba or Congo or Bolivia). JDG 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

JDG, I disagree. I also have first-hand knowledge from "unimpeachable (but personal, and therefore unusable) sources" that is not entirely congruent with your views. In my opinion, this is the reason the article must be based on WP:V, WP:RS etc. as any article should be and not on personal information no matter how "unimpeachable". You and I may disagree on the degree of "unimpeachability" of our respective sources. Naturally I tend to believe my first-hand sources since your sources are unknown to me. How would this quality (relative impeachability of personal sources) be evaluated and resolved? Sincerely, Mattisse 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Henri, I don't claim that first-hand (but unpublished) sources can be evaluated and resolved for the purposes of a W article. There are many high-quality published sources for the rewritten sentence. It has simply been the will of this article's editors that has determined which subsets of sources are emphasized. I disagree with this approach. NPOV is best reached by representing multiple opinions, not by attempting a totally dispassionate narrative voice extending even to sources and quotes, as this article mostly does... I mention my personal sources because I feel I know that a significant number of those destroyed at La Cabana were in no way "war criminals". So I naturally would want to see this knowledge incorporated into the article in a way consistent with policy... But I'm curious: your personal sources claim that every single one of those executed was a war criminal? JDG 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quite. The same happens when using verifiable sources, since the literature (in English, anyway) is likely going to come from either the pro or anti Castro/Guevara factions. Is anyone familiar with any history of Cuba/Castro/Guevara that is disparaged by both "sides", for not representing the truth as they see it, which may be the source of more balanced/neutral cites? If there is no such thing then the lead (and the article) needs to be a balancing act between the two viewpoints. LessHeard vanU 19:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am most comfortable if we leave the issue of "unimpeachable (but personal, and therefore unusable) sources" out of the discussion and deal with information that is properly sourced from whatever point of view. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the first problem being that Miami is just chock full of first hand accounts that no doubt differ from the first hand accounts coming from S. America and the few from Cuba, however, it seems there is one source claiming they are war criminals, and several claiming that they were mostly just members of the old government and/or members of society who prospered under it. Perhaps we could write something to the effect of "some claim..., while most others..." otherwise it seems that the current wording is the minority view. I do apologize for being absent from this debate, I am going to be fortunate enough to be able to go to Cuba in the coming month (oh, the joy of being a student again, and being able to get a student visa) to staff a humanitarian medical clinic there and later in Haiti so I will be away from wikipedia for a while. Gtadoc 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So this page has been very quiet; It looks to me as if there is a concensus to make this [[1]] the new intro version, with any minor details to be worked out later if need be (but not, for example, adding back in the old pov wording that started this). If this is the agreed upon version (or close enough to it) I'll ask for the page to be unprotected. Gtadoc 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is of any particular interest, but just thought I would point out that the suggested re-write [[2]] contains numerous factual errors. It does not make sense to me that, because the existing intro has one sentence (i.e. re the executions) that requires minor modification, it should be replaced by a complete "re-write" that incorporates numerous inaccuracies, the egregious nature of which should be apparent to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Guevara's life. I am not going to detail them here, but if the "re-write" is put into the article, I will tag each such occurrence.

-- Polaris999 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the time being, everything ought to be sourced even in the intro. This will make statements in the intro more credible. Sourcing is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, and the only way to go to prevent warring. If statements are in the intro, they should be sourced somewhere in the article and you should be able to find citations there. I don't think you should make up a version to make it sound neutral. Also, I don't think you should use quotes without clear citations anywhere, including the intro. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, alternatively, we could leave it how it is while only changing the one offending sentence? Gtadoc 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict} To me, more care needs to be put into the rewrite than appears to be the case. For example, I just looked at Footnote 5, the last one in the intro.[3] It looks, on casual glance, to be supporting the quote "excessively aggressive quality" as, of course, a quote must be sourced. In actuality it has nothing to do with that quote. To me that is the sort of writing that needs to be avoided if there is going to be any broad agreement to move forward. So I would support going back to the original intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed, than to use one that has a casual disregard for facts. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The option proposed by Mattisse, i.e. "going back to the original intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed" would be my preference also. -- Polaris999 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you wanted to work some more on your rewrite, Polaris (not volunteering you for more work!), I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?) and leave the rest how it was. Gtadoc 04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, it is rather a lot to expect anyone who is serious about the article to want to want to work on it now after what has happened. Perhaps Polaris disagrees and is willing to work on the sentence. If not, then I would go with your suggestion of returning the article to its prior state (before all this started) and removing the offending sentence completely. My feeling is also that the page needs to continue to be protected as nothing has been settled. No new sources have been offered (that I know of) so the status of the POV complaint essentially remains the same. If the POV tag is removed it will probably be quickly returned, and I don't know if anyone has the stomach to go through all this again. Perhaps we all need a rest and we should let the article alone for a while until serious editors are willing to get involved . My experience with articles on Cuba is that once this sort of thing happens, it is a long time, if ever, before serious editors are willing to put work into an article again. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a problem with one editor in particular who went a little nuts, with some people trying to defend him based on how he had acted once in the past...I'm sure I'll have some more interest and time in writing after I return from my trip (about Cuba and Haiti). For the moment I'm mostly writing on science pages in the brief time I have. I'm also in the process of rewriting a history website for the DOE that I stumbled across and found most sorry. If no one else pings in I'll make a request for the change (removing the sentence) but not to unprotect the page. Gtadoc 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Gtadoc -- I was wondering if you would please clarify what you were referring to when you wrote (above) "I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?)" because I have not done any re-write of that sentence or of any other part of the intro since Jimbo made his comments about the CG article on 7 July 2007. When I mentioned a re-write (above), I was referring to that done by User:Yomangani and posted at Talk:Che Guevara/rewrite -- and I definitely do not think we should adopt it because of the factual errors and sourcing problems it contains.

What Mattisse has written immediately above perfectly captures my feelings about recent events related to the CG article. Nevertheless, I would be willing to work with either or both of you to try to improve the sentence in question. I have been searching through my published sources and seeking out others via the web and feel that it should not be impossible to come up with a version that would be acceptable to most wikipedians (although I readily admit that I may be deluding myself here ... )  I thought that we might start by making a list of points that are generally agreed upon re the La Cabaña tribunals and CG's role in them (all accompanied by reputable sources as per WP:V), then proceed from there to ever so carefully craft a sentence ... If anyone is interested in giving this approach a try (or would like to suggest a better one), please let me know. Thank you -- Polaris999 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I too have been confused by Gtdoc's seemingly haphazard references to rewrites and I am not clear what version he intends to restore. His replies to my comments seem to ignore my concerns and go on about other things that I do not understand. If he intends to restore the original intro (the one before all this started), I would be willing (tentatively) to work with you. My hesitation is that I am not at all clear what is happening now. The fact that there was no response at all to a suggestion that would result in a major change was interpreted as consent suggests to me some clarification is needed. I do not feel like I know what is going on now and would not feel comfortable proceeding until I do. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mattisse -- I share your concerns and hope that clarification will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I compared the pre-Jimbo version (the one on which Jimbo placed the NPOV tag on 07-07-07) of the intro with the current one and confirmed that there are only a couple of differences: (1) the first sentence of the pre-Jimbo version contains a reference to CG being a "medical doctor" which someone had recently inserted and which I consider superfluous in this location, hence I prefer the current version of that sentence which omits it; and (2) the sentence re the executions that has been added into the current version. As to whether or not the latter sentence belongs in the intro, I have no opinion about this one way or the other; however, if it is going to be included, I would like it to be re-written to improve its accuracy and clarity -- nevertheless, I am in no rush to do this, and accept that your idea of a cooling-off period may be the best way to go at this point.

Thank you -- Polaris999 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, if you are confused of something feel free to ask on my talk page. If you don't understand something its better to ask a specific question rather than just say your confused, otherwise its hard to address your concerns specifically (and its much faster than posting here that you are confused...)

I feel we need to fix the current page as it is currently locked in the version that has the problem sentence in it. As for the rewrite I noticed it was unsigned in the page I was looking at and Polaris was the user that had commented next, with his sig seemingly attached to both texts. I looked on a different page and see that it was a different author. It seems as if some want the protection to stay with the current version because they feel it indicates there is some sort of support for that version or validation of it when I feel that just the opposite is the case. I agree with polaris on both his points, and I also agree we should be able to find a way to reconstruct the sentence about the executions to make it both sourced and neutral (I hope...). Mattisse I would also like to point out that while you feel that some people were thrashed after Jimbo's intervention, I know it went both ways as I came here afterwards and tried to help work with what was left and received a slew of personal attacks from the anti jimbo side for simply trying to improve what was left of the article...this seems to be the usual in WP though (in my limited time here) especially when feelings of ownership become involved. Gtadoc 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Gtadoc, please read my concerns about unprotecting the page. Polaris999 has agreed with them. You never responded to my concerns voiced in that post, excerpted below:

My feeling is also that the page needs to continue to be protected as nothing has been settled. No new sources have been offered (that I know of) so the status of the POV complaint essentially remains the same. If the POV tag is removed it will probably be quickly returned, and I don't know if anyone has the stomach to go through all this again. Perhaps we all need a rest and we should let the article alone for a while until serious editors are willing to get involved . My experience with articles on Cuba is that once this sort of thing happens, it is a long time, if ever, before serious editors are willing to put work into an article again.

Excuse me for saying so, but it seems to me you are giving the carefully worded comments I and other have written only cursory attention, certainly not enough to warrant the time we put into them. Every time I voice a concern you ignore the content of my concern and answer in a rambling way about personal issues from you own life that do not pertain to the article at all, or you say the issue all boils down to an editor going "nuts." On this, I do not know what you are referring to and I am doubtful that any one editor going nuts caused this problem (unless you mean Jimbo!). It occurs to me you do not understand the situation. Also, you interpretation of no response to your proposal for the intro as meaning a group consensus is worrisome. How can silence from a diverse and vociferous group mean consensus? Sincerely, Mattisse 03:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you speak as if we've had long drawn out conversations in the past and that I've ignored you the whole time. If you carefully read what I wrote, and I hope since you advise others to read carefully that you would do the same, you will see that I was addressing both you and Polaris. I believe I have addressed the issue you were confused about twice now (above for example:'it was unsigned in the page I was looking at and Polaris was the user that had commented next, with his sig seemingly attached to both texts. I looked on a different page and see that it was a different author') I am fine with page protection as long as it isn't just an attempt to have it kept the way it is, particularly with the one sentence thats clearly out of place as its written. I also agree theres no point in removing the pov tag. While I'm sure a group of editors, yourself included perhaps, were responsible for the fighting that occured after Jimbo's comments, I think you also recall that during the edit war I tried to make small changes as a fresh editor to this article and got my talk pages flamed by Zleitzen, who you tried to defend by rambling about personal issues that did not partain to the article (if I may borrow your language). If Polaris has the time I would be grateful if he wants to do a rewrite. It seems you've misunderstood some of my earlier posts, however, now that you've discovered once again my talk page I hope there won't be any more problems with that in the future. Regards, Gtadoc 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Che Guevara was not captured but killed in an attack with his comrades. Regards, 'The Economist Reader' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.214.5 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Gtadoc

Gtadoc, please read the comments above.

My first comment was on July 29. It was not argumentative and did not suggest content or make accusations. I merely suggest we stick to material that is sourced. Further, I have not edited the CC page at all, certainly not in the last year. Secondly, every proposal I made Polaris999 agreed with, so when you say you agree with Polaris999, you are agreeing with my proposals. I am sorry for missing your clarification about confusing Polaris999's edit with someone else's. I apologize to you for that. I proposed and Polaris999 agreed that:

1. My preference is to go back to the original verson (before all this started and modify or eliminate the offending sentence.

2. That the page needs to continue to be locked as nothing has changed, no new sources have been offered, and no consensus has been agreed to.

3. That both of us are unclear which version you intend to restore and want clarification from you

4. That he accepts my idea of a cooling off period.

In addition Polaris999 suggested that in the meantime we could work on correcting the offending sentence.

Mattisse: There is not really any accusation. You notice the word, perhaps. I don't know what role you played. I do know that you attempted to defend the actions of one of the more flagrant offenders, though, and really thats what I was getting at. I agreed in my writing to all 4 of your points, and thank you for going back and reading what I said. My only addition to your points 1-4, is this (which Polaris also agrees with and you mention): the sentence refering to the execution of "war criminals" be changed or removed instead of allowing it to stay in the text indefenately. Regards, Gtadoc 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gtadoc"

I guess I should be very careful about showing some compassion for someone I worked with over a year ago another article. That is all I was doing. I was very mistaken to post that on your talk page. However, that has nothing to do with my involvement with this article. However, since that is being held against me and my comments are apparently disregarded on that account, I will withdraw from this article. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm not quiet sure why you are taking everything so personally, or why you insist that everything said is in bad faith. I simply pointed out that you had sided with a very disruptive editor; I realize you both worked at some time on the article and put effort into it, which is why my response to you was that I wasn't going to get into a fight with him but at the same time I wasn't going to try to justify his actions. I was actually going to post something today saying I was withdrawing from the article as well since you had decided you were its protector and defender. In fact this all started as a bit of an experiment, I've been exploring WP a bit after reading about its use in some undergraduate teaching settings. I've been rather dissappointed of what I've found, and probably won't be continuing my involvement with WP in the future. You are free to do whatever you like to the CG article, as clearly you view input that conflicts with your own as personal attacks on you, and since to you my contributions are seen as a waste I won't spend any more time on it. Regards. Gtadoc 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Gtadoc, you said on your talk page that you were merely pointing out that I had a "side". I don't have a "side" regarding the article itself. In really I know little about Che Guevera. I had personal emotions regarding an issue over another article entirely and made the mistake of expressing them. What "side" am I supposed to have? All I have said is that I believe it is important in these situations to follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. So if that is a "side", then I have one. That is what I believe, that is what I have expressed. Is it because User:Polaris999 has agreed emphatically with everything I have said that you see me as having a side? I have never been accused of bias on Wikipedia—well, except by you. But who decides what is NPOV? That is where WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE come in. Stop accusing me. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never accused you of that, I accused Zleitzen of that. Its not a subtle difference, and I would point back to the comments you made about careful reading. Sources can be used to deliberately insert pov language into an article, which is whats currenlty in the sentence regarding executions in the CG article. Again, not sure what you're taking offense to, but I'll leave you to ponder. Good luck with the article. Gtadoc 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you said was "While I'm sure a group of editors, yourself included perhaps, were responsible for the fighting that occurred after Jimbo's comments....". I interpret that as an accusation. That is what I take offense to. The "perhaps" does not mitigate it as you claim. I take such accusations seriously because I have always been careful not to engage in what you are accusing me of. Show me an NPOV insertion I have made in an article. Show me how I was responsible for anything, considering my first post ever on this page was July 29, 2007. Yes, I do take offense at that. If you have proof, show me. Otherwise, stop the accusations. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, it seems you have a habit of taking offense to even the smallest things, even on other articles, even after its been pointed out that no offense was intended. I've already explained myself to you. There aren't any accusations, but feel free to feel victimized. Perhaps you need some calming down time, I don't know, as you don't appear to have been listening to what I was saying. I have no more time to spend in an arguement that isn't going anywhere. Best of luck to you, Gtadoc 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Che a mestizo?

Che's familial heritage is listed as Spanish and Irish, mentioning Basque ancestry in both maternal and paternal lines, but says nothing of him actually having any Native blood. Did he? Or was the Cuban Revolution so manned by a Caucasian Argentine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk • contribs)

"Celia de la Serna was a true Argentine blue blood of undiluted Spanish noble lineage. One ancestor had been the Spanish royal viceroy of colonial Peru; another a famous Argentine military general."

As for his father... "He was the great-grandson of one of South America's richest men, and his ancestors included both Spanish and Irish nobility." Source: Che Guevera - A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson; Chapter: Unquiet youth; pp. 4.

Referring to his paternal grandmother, please note that Lynch (surname) is of Irish origin.

P.S. Same but more in detail can found at pages 19-20 of Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el CHE by Paco Ignacio Taibo II-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Added 08/13/2007

In an attempt to clarify this point, the general argentinian population has a low amount of indigenous blood compared to nearly all other south american countries, most of the mestizo people that live in argentina are focused in the northern states close to bolivia, northern chile and paraguay where a strong mestizo and outright indigenous populations still live. Having been born in argentina, there is an outside possibility that che had some indigenous blood, but given his ancestry and the fact that he was argentinian, would make him among the least likely of south americans to have some mestizo blood.

This being said, whether che had mestizo blood or not, and the point of his ancestry, are in my oppinion - as a latin american myself - completely unnecesary and irrelevant points to make, that he had or didn't have mestizo blood in no way affects his feelings of belonging or his idealism. Che was an argentinian and a latin american thru and thru. These considerations have no place whatsoever in discussions about him or in the main article being discussed.

75.15.114.83 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)signed, dalcazar.

I think such consideration does have some value in these discussions, because, unless I am mistaken, Che did use being a Mestizo in his propaganda.

I believe Celia de la Cerna was really Celia Scheinermann and she immigrated to South America after fleeing from a Russia Pogrom. Her brother Samuel Scheinermann went from Russia to British Palestine Mandate (today's Israel) and had son Ariel Sharon. Celia has never been refered to the Viceroy of Peru as her father but just her ancestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.89.125 (talk) 19:59, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Where did that come from? -Sandahl 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Basque are not caucasian, they were in Europe since the old stone age.(30,000 years ago).162.84.158.245 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Basques are Celtic, and Celts (Irish, Lusitanian, Gaulic, etc.) are white, which is all I was implying by Caucasion--and I only address race as an issue as relevant as it's expressed politically.

Authenticity of overall content

I have carefully reviewed the article and read all the comments prior to this one, and a very small fraction of concerns are legitimate. In general, they seem to focus on changing key words to broaden or narrow the scope of the violence that surrounded Che's life depending on their personal preference for capitalism or marxism.

The events that transpired were undeniably horible and no impartial observers were there to author an account. The precise truth may never be known, so the point is moot.

What does matter is the quality of the overall content of this article. I reviewed it thoroughly, along with my wife, who holds degrees in Political Science and International Relations with emphasis on Latin America. We concur that this article is concise, accurate, and indeed the most thorough encyclopedia article we have seen on this subject.

It is inevitable that many will want to put their 2 cents in about such a polarizing figure. So I vote to remove the "Neutrality Dispute" tag, but to leave the edit protection in place to preserve the current high quality of this article.--Bodybagger 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BodybaggerChico 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is much better than a year ago, when it was controlled by someone named "Polaris999" who prevented any criticism or skepticism about Che's action. This page needs to be monitored by many people to prevent it becoming entirely biased to one side or the other again. DonPMitchell 19:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is much better now. It does seem to, in my opinion, still make an effort to make it look unfair that Che' was executed without the benefit of a trial, and that his death was staged to look as if it had occured in combat. Since Che' himself ordered summary executions of hundreds of people, there are hardly any grounds to cast the Bolivians in a bad light for following his own policy toward dangerous prisoners. The motive behind the staging of his death was a clear attempt to head off what has in fact happened - the manufacturing of a international martyr for Communism. Many of the college students today that wear the Che' memorabilia seemed shocked upon discovering just how many people he had a direct hand in killing. They seem to have a view of him as some sort of peaceful revolutionary and an almost Christ-like figure.

Jewish?

Accordding to the Russian newagency NTV, Che Guevara is jewish because his mother is a relative of Ariel Sharon's Mother. Now there is a comment in here saying what i have said. Can some one confirm what i have just said please? also I'm a giant retard—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.116.122 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether Che was or was not jewish by blood is completely irrelevent. Therefore I suggest that it not even be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaboration of rumors and assumptions.

55 soldiers killed in Bolivia

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/che_s40th;_ylt=Arh9h7Ys8XJnzo4oVifs1Ei3IxIF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.201.35 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

??? Nil Einne 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Execution

In the execution section, it's clear that an attempt was made to make it seem he was killed during fighting not executed. There is brief mention of how rumours surrounding the circumstances of his death began to spread and how the executioner showed of what he stole. However it's not clear when or how the truth about his execution was revealed Nil Einne 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of murder

I have heard some claim that Che murdered a pregnant woman because her family opposed him. Is there any truth to this claim? If not where does the myth come from? If so, shouldn't it be included in the article? --Jayson Virissimo 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me at all. He was a commi and that's the worst kind of scum there is.

Norum 07:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a terrorist, he killed people in the name of an ideology, as much as like today terrorists.

Anonnymous Sat Dec 22 10:56:19 UTC 2007

These responses are insanely uninformed. "he was a commi [sic] and thats the worst kind of scum there is." I am a radical leftist, I have never in my life been called scum before. Also, a terrorist is not someone that kills someone in the name of ideology, if that were true, every person that volunteered for the US army because they thought it was right would be a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who brings fear in the civilian population. They do not need a reason. As to the pregnant woman thing, I would assume it is false, there are plenty of absurd stories people have created about people they do not like throughout the years. I have never heard of this before, and I have never seen any evidence of it. At Wikipedia, we are to only provide proven information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Che and Rodriguez

A question to those who CAN edit the page. There was a photo of Che and Rodriguez yesterday. Today it's excluded both from the article about Che and fron the article about Rodriguez. Why? you say no source? here's a source: http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/_borders/Che_with_Rodriguez_before_death.jpg please put it back on both articles

Are you sure that's Che and Rodriguez? I recognize Rodriguez easily enough, but I think the one that's supposed to be Che might actually be Jeter after a two-week bender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.30.136 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An new documentary film by Wilfried Huismann, shown on german tv Oct 2007, reveals that this photo has been faked, by Rodriguez himself. http://www.taz.de/1/leben/medien/artikel/1/der-falsche-freund/?src=SE&cHash=1c2b86d954 Doceddi 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Consequences that Che was not aware of the illuminati conspiracy

1962: Che and Fidel shared their suspicions of the Soviet Union. But there were other influences on Fidel, particularly his brother Raúl who was close to the Communists.

For Che it was clear that an escape from sugar dependency was the indispensable precondition for political independence from the Soviet bloc, towards which his attitude was becoming increasingly critical. 'Against Bureaucratism' (February 1963) was a thinly veiled attack on the new bureaucracy which had grown up under the patronage of the increasingly influential Soviet economic advisers.

The debate about the economy that erupted in mid-1963 was a consequence of Che Guevara understanding that the Soviet Union leaders should not be trusted. He had recognised at an early stage that Cuba could not escape dependency without diversifying the economy, an escape from sugar dependency was the indispensable precondition for political independence from the Soviet bloc.

The argument took place against a background of deepening economic integration with the Eastern bloc and a consequent shift in the political balance within Cuba itself. And this was one of the major sources of the growing rift between Che and Fidel.

By mid-1965 Che Guevara had resigned all his government posts and left Cuba. Che's articles and speeches return again and again to his recognition that the revolution could only survive if Cuba could break out of its economic straitjacket. His initial hope that the Eastern bloc would assist Cuba in the enterprise turned quickly to disillusionment as it became clear that it would not play that role. Che's last speech, in Algiers in February 1965, was an explicit and frontal attack on the Soviet Union for its lack of internationalism and its cynical manipulation of the Cuban Revolution - but it was only the last in a series of increasingly angry discussions of the same issue. Fidel Castro for his part had clearly accepted that relationship without conditions - he had become an instrument of that manipulation. Che's letter of resignation, written in 1964, was not made public until 1967.

Today we know that the illuminati agents had infiltrated the Soviet Union government to the point where, after the murder of JFK, the US and the Soviet Union were in fact ruling the world together, under the cover of the "cold war".

These are the key facts required to understand the death of Che in Bolivia, betrayed by Fidel, who by then was another member of the illuminati conspiracy.

Lottery0101 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Aristocratic" family

Can this be explained more fully (but briefly)? The mere listing of ancestors doesn't give an explanation. Precisely how was Guevara's family "aristocratic"?67.142.130.31 15:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Even dedicated Marxists will not deny that he was born into a middle class family (see here[[4]]. Saying he was born into an "aristocratic" family seems like a gross overstatement to me. This site [[5]] mentions that some of his ancestors include intellectuals such as Benito Lynch (1882-1951) and Adolfo Bioy Casares (1914-1999) and Chilean rear admiral Patricio Lynch Zaldívar (1824-1886). His grandfather on his mothers side is also said to have been an Argentine consulate official in Los Angeles. Still, I'm not sure this truly makes his family "aristocratic". I can see where the idea would come from though, and I don't know how to explain it briefly. --KobaVanDerLubbe 11:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

About the translation from spanish to english

I was wondering if this translation is really correct( comandante as major in the english language). In my point of view they are different things.

--Hyperdome 04:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

citation for quote in lead

The reference quotation is the following.

"Throughout January, suspected war criminals were being captured and brought to La Cabana daily. For the most part, these were not the top henchmen of the ancien régime; most had escaped before the rebels assumed control of the city and halted outgoing air and sea traffic, or remained holed up in embassies. Most of those left behind were deputies, or rank and file chivatos and police torturers. The trials began at eight or nine in the evening, and, more often than not, a verdict was reached by two or three in the morning. Duque de Estrada, whose job it was to gather evidence, take testimonies, and prepare the trials, also sat with Che, the "supreme prosecutor," on the appellate bench, where Che made the final decision on the men's fate." Source: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, pp. 386-387.

Since the quotations are used in the reference citation also, it is not clear who is being quoted in the reference. The author of the reference source cited, (Source: Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, pp. 386-387) needs to clarify the source of any quotations he uses. It does not serve as a reference source for a quote such as "supreme prosector" if the source is also an unsourced quote. --Mattisse 12:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista a dictator?

Why is it necessary to call Batista a dictator? Does that add anything of value to the article? That the only offered source for this is an encyclopedia, why don't we just skip the POV judgment. We don't call Che a terrorist, for example.PStrait 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista is commonly referred to as a Dictator. Che is usually referred to as Revolutionary. I think it is as simple as that. : Albion moonlight 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not against calling Batista a dictator as much as I am against citing an ENCYCLOPEDIA as proof of anything.PStrait 19:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think that while the term 'dictator' is used frequently, when the question of whether Batista was in fact a dictator or something else is considered, scholars often argue he was something else, like a constitutional president. (http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=122). PStrait 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista a dictator or not is up for many disscusions Cuba was a econimic force under his rule you can not say the same for Fidel Castro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.37.241 (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

eh, this isn't a great argument, although its facially accurate. Economic prosperity however is not a function of whether or not the leader is a dictator. I believe, and I have presented evidence, that Batista followed the Constitution and his title was "president," so it would be appropriate to call him that. The only reference for him being a dictator is an encyclopedia article, which is irrelevant since an encyclopedia only has authority based on the authority it cites. The only detailed discussions I can find on the question of whether or not Batista was a dictator indicate he was not in fact a dictator. Many people flippantly refer to him as a dictator, but the analysis seems to go one direction. PStrait 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

the key issue here is people are, excuse my french, confusing asshole with dictator. Batista may have been a corrupt asshole, with the hands of american corporations in his pockets, to the detriment of his own people, but he wasnt a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.60.178 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that I only see these arguments against calling people dictators when the dictators hated communists (Franco for example) Let me make this simple, If Batista says he wants someone in prison, they are sent to prison. If he says someone should be shot, they are shot. It is that simple. That is how dictators work. One does not argue that Hitler was not a dictator because he had advisers. Might I add something on the calling of Mr. Guevara De La Serna a terrorist as well. Che Guevara writes in his book, Guerrilla Warfare that the civilians are not the target of military attacks, for his army was made of civilians. A terrorist uses terror on the civilian population to force the people to submit to their cause. Che fought the ARMY not the civilians. We do not call Che a terrorist because he was NOT ONE. We call Batista a dictator be cause he WAS ONE.

True legacy...

His legacy lives on through shirts worn by long haired, Birkenstock wearing college dropouts who smoke pot and live in their parent's basements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.9.24 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the complexity is that the large majority of civilians who wanted to overthrow Batista wanted true democracy, and supported Castro's actions without really knowing what he was truly about. Remember, Castro, outside of railing against Batista, never let his true intentions out in public. His public announcement to Communism happened after he was firmly in power. Many of the people executed by Castro via Che were NOT Batista sympathizers as much as people who saw where Castro/Che were leading. Forgotten here is that through the lens of Castro/Che, Batista supporters were not the only enemies, but those wanting democratic reforms were also enemies. JF(64.183.207.46 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

JF, i think you posted this in the wrong section, though this one deserves no response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sherman Reference as Firefly in picture is wrong

The Firefly is a 17lb (88mm) armed Sherman. The Shermans provided to Cuba according to http://www.tankhistory.com/ were 7 standard M4A3 76mm Shermans. Suggest you remove the term "Firefly" from the picture caption. Tom Harris 135.245.8.36 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that this looks loke a firefly http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Cuba/Cub-ShermanRebels.jpg Geni 14:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Legacy elsewhere in Latin America

The section called ‘the “Cult of Che” ’ contains a substantial paragraph which looks at how Guevara is seen in Latin American states other than Cuba, including by elected leaders such as Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. Interesting stuff, but is ‘the “Cult of Che” ’ the right heading for it?

I suggest it deserves a separate section, immediately under the sections about how Che is viewed by Cubans. The new section could have the heading ‘Legacy elsewhere in Latin America’.

Kalidasa 777 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • "Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him, by Humberto Fontova" SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED ON THIS PAGE. It is right wing drivel. Would you include holocaust denial material on a page about the Holocaust ? How about thoughts from the "Flat Earth Society" on the page about the World ? I have read every single book in print in reference to Che Guevara (Including Fontova's) and his book is pure unadulterated unfounded crap.

Broken Links

Two of the PDF links seem to be broken

67.168.79.248 07:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

removal or replacement of image

This image is cofusing my eyes. Its impossible to read the text without risking serious eye damage :). It also destroys the formatting of the section in my browser). Can it be removed or at least replaced with another one ? -- Stan _talk 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some contributor already removed this image about three weeks ago. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured photo

The top section of the article refers to the Korda photo and says "(shown)" but the photo shown is not Korda's. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Korda for that photo.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.127.106 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion. The photo, while good, is NOT the famous one associated with revolutionary movements. This should be corrected. But of course, the article is "protected" so only certain people can correct it. And I'm not one of them.

[sigh]  :-(

24.6.66.193 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the other one much better too. The article is only semi protected. The reason I do not put it back myself is because I am not sure why the other one was replaced. : Albion moonlight 11:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the photo File:Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg was deleted from Wikipedia, most likely because of copyright infringement. User:Raul654 may know the reason it was deleted. In any event, the photo is no longer available on Wikipedia. --Mattisse 11:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

THe article does not have any mention of India as one of the countries he visited, while he visited India sometime in the 1960s. I have no reference as such, but I remember seeing a photo of his visit in the Indian Statistical Institute Museum.Ntveem (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already mentioned in article. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He visited India 10 - 12 July 1959 during his first international tour. That trip is not covered in detail in this article because of Wikipedia's guidelines re the preferred length of articles. -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken links

Someone entered an unreliable source for "cigarettes" (footnote 110 if you look at the reference note list) and broke all the footnotes from that point on. --Mattisse 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the problem with that source note -- hope it is all right now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation of name

could the pronunciation of his names be added? lots of articles now do it with the IP standards 99.224.220.52 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. Use IPA if you are doing so. - Jmabel | Talk 08:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg

Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthday actually one month earlier; May 14

There are sources, including published biographies, that list his birthday as May 14.

His mother changed the date on his birth certificate, to avoid scandal at having been pregnant when she married Che's father.

Aye, I believe I remember seeing this in My Friend Che as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugby playing

Can someone put in more about Che's interest in rugby, which was more than passing (pun intended)? Amongst other things, he set up a rugby magazine, and did a Marxist analysis of the game. An interesting sideline.

Some resources here - http://search.live.com/results.aspx?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=rugby+%22che+guevara%22

--MacRusgail (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Lee Anderson

For his part Jon Lee Anderson author of the 800 + page biography 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life' [22] has stated that: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason, rape, torture, or murder." [23] Anderson's biography has been criticized by Conservative Cuban exile and author Humberto Fontova however, who points out that Anderson wrote his biography of Che partially while living in Cuba and makes the accusation that he cited ministers of the Cuban government as his primary sources.

Isn't using Jon Lee Anderson as a reference in this article NPOV by defenition? This sentence also seems, i dunno, weasely - the "800 + page" self-promoting snippet for example, or that JLA views are extremely left of origin is not mentioned, but Humberto Fontova has to be branded as a "Conservative" and "Cuban Exile" so that we know that he is biased? I know there have been many discussions about the "legitimacy" of Che's violent side, but this just comes off as a whitewash. Leave the whole paragraph out imo, or rework it. (edit:forgot to sign in) --Popoi (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of Jon Lee Anderson referring to Che Detractors as "useful idiots" or anything similar. He is a reporter and scholar and does not revert to sophmorish partisan insults or extreme hyperbole. Also yes it matters that he wrote the definitive 800 page biography ... which is a far cry from a short 200 pg Cuban exile rant with very little sourcing - which is what Fontova's drivel is. Redthoreau (talk --TR 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is Fontova even mentioned in the article at all then? Anyone can make a driveling rant against Che Guevara, but why is this guy important? Also, It seems a little trivial to measure success by page length only, I mean, aren't there any other redeeming qualities about JLA's biography other than being "800 +" pages? -- Mein Kampf is 600+ pages, but that doesn't mean it's a great resource for racial equality. --Popoi (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice red herring and use of quasi Reductio ad Hitlerum ... but to answer your questions. (1)The only reason that Humberto Fontova is included in the article is because the poster CJ Griffin has placed him in it. And if I delete Fontova's non sense then he will revert it and begin a revert war solving nothing. I don't view Fontova as a credible source (and his ideas seem to contradict 95 % of anything that has ever been written about Che, sort of like "Flat Earth" theory or Holocaust denial) but CJ Griffin does ... hence what to do ? (2) The length is semi relevant in the extent that it shows his breadth of research. Try handing in a 20 page Doctoral thesis or writing a summary of the Bible in 1 page and then talk to me about length. The length and breadth of research that Jon Lee Anderson conducted is what makes his book the definitive biography on the man and yes gives it a long length - hell his footnotes and sources exceed everything that Humberto Fontova has ever written on the topic or made up off the top of his head. Redthoreau (talk--TR 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually here's my real beef with the paragraph: The statement by JLA is his opinion not fact! As pointed out elsewhere, the facts will never be known. I propose we leave it at "Che Guevara was in charge of executing members of the overthrown government". Why do executions need to be qualified? Executions are executions anyway you look at it. Is Wikipedia the place where we differentiate between "legitimate" executions and those that are not? --Popoi (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no Jon Lee Anderson is an investigative journalist and biographer and it is his professional assessment that Che didn't oversee any executions of innocent people. Yes it is the doctors opinion you have a cold but he also uses his experience to make such an assessment/hypothesis. Who better than Anderson who spent years researching Che talking to supporters and detractors to make such an assessment ? Also the fact that he lived in Cuba is ridiculous … where was he supposed to live while writing the portion of his book on Che’s experience in Cuba ? Greenland ? Should we blame the governors of US States for all the executions that take place in those states because they don't commute the sentences? Could we then declare these men "Executioners" ? Should Truman be seen as an executioner for the Nuremberg Trials and can we lie all those deaths at his feet ? Are military victors allowed to execute the enemy who themselves raped, murdered, and tortured people and not be seen as "Cold blooded Killers" ? It is Jon Lee Anderson's assessment that all of the people executed under Che's watch at La Cabana were the goons, killer, and henchmen of the former dictator Batista. Thus yes people were killed ... but to Anderson they weren't innocent and you could make a case they deserved it (if you believe in the death penalty as punishment for such things). Redthoreau (talk--TR 19:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless I removed the "800 + page" reference. Redthoreau (talkTR 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Guevara's self published works" -- this section title appears inaccurate

Could someone please clarify or revise it? -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I switched it to "authored" works. if you think this is wrong please correct it. Redthoreau (talk --TR 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Redthoreau, for that modification. -- Polaris999 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polaris thank you for cleaning up my Spanish translations which were I guess a little rusty. :o) Redthoreau (talk --TR 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Redthoreau, always glad to be able to help out a bit. You certainly have compiled a superb collection of external links and I am especially enjoying watching the videos, so would like to say "thank you" for all of your hard work on that section as well. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)