Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Hasta la victoria siempre

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)

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)

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)

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

Che only other member in Castro's Army to given title Comandante?

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)

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

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

German and Russian authorities state "Tania" was not a Stasi nor a KGB operative

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)

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

Guevara and "Irish" (Norman aristocrat) ancestry

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)

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)

The atrocities of Che

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)

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)

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)

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)

Date of birth

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

— Anderson, Che Guevara, a revolutionary life, page 3.

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)

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

Thank you very much. I promise not to try to write in english again. I'm clearly getting old. I didn´t imagine it would be so hard. User:Marcelo / talk -- 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.116.2 (talk)

20,000 vs 2,000 deaths under Batista

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"

• The Free World Colossus: a Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War‎ - Page 192 - (by current day Conservative and Castro-critic David Horowitz) .... "the 20,000 Cubans who had been killed by the Batista regime"

• World Guide: A View from the South‎ - Page 209 - .... "Batista engineered yet another coup, establishing a dictatorial regime which was responsible for the death of 20,000 Cubans"

• The Third World in Perspective‎ - Page 344 .... "under Batista at least 20,000 people were put to death"

• Invisible Latin America‎ - Page 77 .... "All told, Batista's second dictatorship cost the Cuban people some 20,000 dead"

• Conflict, Order, and Peace in the Americas‎ - Page 121 (by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, hardly a bastion of Marxism) .... "The US-supported Batista regime killed 20,000 Cubans"

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

BTW when I talk about propaganda, I am referring to propaganda that is untrue not some Media station like MSNBC or FOX being overtly partisan. What corporate propaganda or government propaganda in western countries say, will almost certainly have more truth to it than Communist countries like cold war ear China or Vietnam. Communist countries use untrue propaganda (outright lies or extreme exxagerations) far more than capitalist countries. Usually communist countries indoctrinate there people and lie constantly, where as capatilst countries tend to be far more free and sane and have less need to lie. Communist countries like North Korea and Cuba did literally blame much of 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, it is an economic system(should be compared to Socialism not Communism). And I don't really want morally equate "Capitalism" and "Communism" since they are by no means morally equivalent. And yeh it is fine the way it is right now. Stumink

Stumink's Doubling of Legacy section

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)

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)

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)

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

Hi, I'm new, I'm from Italy and I am passionate about biography and graduated in History at the University. - Just two points: 1) Considering much of what Fontoya says, Regarding what What did may actually be true.[...] Where does he get His stories from? Other exiles. It is hard to test That These are true As They Happened 50 years ago. Sorry, but I disagree, many things that Mr. Fotova says are patently false and easily disproved, unfortunately Mr Fontova is so blinded by his hatred that clearly exaggerates and distorts. Many Cubans in exile make this mistake, I understand that they are angry and I can understand their frustration, but doing so will no benefit their cause. 2) Pinochet killed 3.000 people right but he ran a country for 16 years, where as May ran for 1 year in prison. Nobody, not even the Cuban exiles, has ever accused Che had killed 3,000 people. Read again his sentence: managed the messy business with (only) 3,000 dead "- Which is about 2.800 blackberries Ironically deaths than the anti-Che Free Society Project 'even attributes to Guevara. Also I believe that how many dead is dangerous ground. For example, the enemies of the United States could say that because they killed millions of people during the twentieth century with wars, murders of CIA, funding for terrorist groups, supporting dictators, death penalty and practice of torture abroad for their enemies etc. they are like the Nazis, this is incorrect, of course but some people believe it is a comparison feasible. Indeed the reality and the history is more complex than that and should be judged as a whole in an objective and detached into account the context, rationale, purpose etc.. The history can only write by of the people impartial and not emotionally involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.228.94 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Capture

The section 'Capture and execution' states that Che shouted at his captors: "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead." It cites p733 of the 1997 edition of Jon Lee Anderson's biography. However, I cannot find this quote anywhere in the revised 2010 edition.

The Wikipedia article says Anderson is quoting Bolivian Sergeant Bernardino Huanca's account. However, the only mention of Huanca in the 2010 edition is on p702, and it does not feature the 'worth more to you alive than dead' quote. There is nothing in the footnotes either.

This suggests that either the Wikipedia article is mistaken in citing Anderson's biography as a source or that the quote was removed from the revised edition. In either case, its inclusion here seems questionable.

Is anyone in a position to confirm whether the 'worth more alive than dead' quote is in the 1997 edition and why Anderson chose to omit it from the revised edition?

Seán Mac G (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

National Security Archive quotes him as saying it. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/

--Lacarids (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alma Mater

I'm not making any accusations here.... but I think the article could be improved if it included more on his education. According to the first sentence of the article, he was a physician. The article tells me when he entered the university. But there are several diplomas between entering a university and coming out with the title "physician." The article should but doesn't include any of the "w's" about which universities he graduated from. --Lacarids (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Add my image of Cubans wearing their iconic pride in Che to Legacy section

Cubans wearing their iconic pride in 2010.

Please add an image I took in 2010 that I think will enhance the existing messaging in the Legacy section how Cubans wear their iconic pride in Che. I donated it to WikiMedia Commons, open licensing.

Where this paragraph is: Meanwhile, Guevara remains a beloved national hero to many in Cuba, where his image adorns the $3 Cuban peso and school children begin each morning by pledging "We will be like Che."...

Add image right-aligned, keeping text messaging unaltered. Kconnelly (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kconnelly. Although your image addition is appreciated, there are dozens upon dozens of images of Guevara's face (used in a similar manner) already on Commons. Obviously they can not all be included, and so we must be very selective. I would posit that there are already images on Commons of clearer quality to display the subject if an additional image were to be added to the Legacy section in question. Your image unfortunately distorts his face (crinkled backpack) and in my view would not significantly add to the article. Others may disagree with me though.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Source supports transformation by UFC aggression, not by poverty and alienation

Resolved

Even after the poverty but not alienation is discussed, Che says "But I continued to be, as we all continue to be always, a child of my environment, and I wanted to help those people with my own personal efforts." It was only after he was impressed by successful aggression by the United Fruit Company that "Then I realized a fundamental thing: For one to be a revolutionary doctor or to be a revolutionary at all, there must first be a revolution. Isolated individual endeavour, for all its purity of ideals, is of no use, and the desire to sacrifice an entire lifetime to the noblest of ideals serves no purpose if one works alone, solitarily, in some corner of America, ..." A person himself however may not be the best judge of when he was transformed, have experts pinpointed the time and cause?--Africangenesis (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

From the source: "Because of the circumstances in which I traveled, first as a student and later as a doctor, I came into close contact with poverty, hunger and disease; with the inability to treat a child because of lack of money; with the stupefaction provoked by the continual hunger and punishment, to the point that a father can accept the loss of a son as an unimportant accident, as occurs often in the downtrodden classes of our American homeland. And I began to realize at that time that there were things that were almost as important to me as becoming a famous or making a significant contribution to medical science: I wanted to help those people." However, the intro is a supposed to act as a summary of the article. His memoirs The Motorcycle Diaries and for all intents and purposes the sequel Latin America Diaries show in full detail the aforementioned transformation. Guevara also speaks extensively in various speeches and texts about how the poverty and alienation transformed him. The intro used to be heavily referenced, but the consensus was to lessen the amount of refs to comply with Wiki's intro guidelines. Every word in the intro could have a reference after it, but shouldn't. As for him not being the "best judge", the biographers Anderson, Castaneda, and Taibo all come to the same conclusion as the introduction, and again could be used as refs - but that would be overkill for a non-disputed reality. You are jumping into the fray without realizing that these issues have already been addressed long ago, which is why the talk page is best to bring up issues, rather than unilaterally adjusting an intro that has been stable in its current state for a very long time.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The text you quote does not support "transformation", all the wording is gradual, remaining "a child of my environment" until the UFC aggression. Your argument that there has been agreement to have less references in the intro, is irrelevant, if the references below don't support the statement either. Where the traveling at this part of his life is discussed, it used the same ref #9. If as you say, there are references that support the earlier transformation, then those should be used instead, can't you quote from them?--Africangenesis (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

AfricanGenesis, the case could be made that no references are required at all in an article introduction, or very few. The ones currently being utilized were provided because they offered a nice summary of the overall point being made, but are not meant to be all-inclusive of every word in the preceding sentence. Entire books have been written about the issue in question; that you seem to be pretending is somehow not acknowledged by nearly all related researchers and biographers. Of course there are references, in fact many used to be in the introduction specifically dealing with “imperialism”, “colonialism”, “capitalism”, “poverty” etc specifically – but the decision was reached that having a ref after each word was cumbersome for the reader. Of course quotes could be acquired or dug up if necessary (it may take a day or two), but I’m not even sure what shifting issue you are disputing or what you want "proven" (via reference)? Anyone with a moderate level of knowledge on the subject would recognize this as something not in dispute, which probably explains why it has remained unquestioned in a GA intro for years without being an issue.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The intro sounds like a just-so story that someone would like to believe, Che himself does not portray the poverty as transformative, or discuss alienation at this time. It is myth building to believe that Che invented all of marxist critical theory on his own based merely on observation. If there is evidence he actually did form those views at that time, based on mere experience and observation and had not yet been exposed to Marx, then present it. Perhaps having been exposed to Marx makes his views seem more derivative and a result of cultural transmission and indoctrination and less an independent confirmation of Marx. He would have been predisposed to reach the conclusions he did rather than a lone romantically sensitive and insightful thinker. In any case reference 10 didn't support this statement anymore than reference 9 the former. --Africangenesis (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've searched the archives, and it looks like the current fanciful language has been questioned before and never supported. Some romantic must keep putting it back in. It is more likely that Che's marxist conclusions represent conformation bias, since the observations alone could easily have supported different conclusions. What is in that introduction should be reduced to what can be supported by the evidence, and probably should be attributed in the language itself rather than stated as if for the truth of the matter. --Africangenesis (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

AfricanGenesis, first I have moved “alienation” from the previous sentence to later in the intro where it can easily be referenced if you desire (per the "Socialism and Man" essay amongst many sources). I have also included the issue of the United Fruit Company in the intro per your previous addition, but placed it in relation to the Arbenz coup chronologically. Hopefully, these at least move us further along in the “dispute”, although I know you still have additional concerns. As for your above comment: Che does portray his travels as transformative in his own memoirs and biographers agree. Nobody here is stating that he “invented all of Marxist critical theory”, a claim that even Che himself never made. His views at this time (according to the sources) come from a combination of his observations and his earlier limited readings of Marx or other Marxists (i.e. Lenin, Engels etc) at the time in question. As for reference 10, do you dispute that Che believed that World Revolution was necessary to combat what he deemed to be the ills of capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, and monopolism (what he often called “monopoly capital”)? Because direct quotes can be culled if necessary from his own speeches (#10 even has some) or from his biographers. Lastly, which specific language do you find “fanciful”? As for your WP:OR that Che experienced “confirmation bias”, that very well could be, but Wikipedia is not the place for our own personal diagnosis on the matter. Unfortunately I have to sleep, but I will check back tomorrow for your reply and/or that of others – and realize this issue is still unresolved in your view.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to know what Che "truly" believed, and more importantly to this discussion. WHEN he truly believed it. Much of what he says and wrote was years after the fact, when he might have wanted the narrative to look best in contemporary circumstance, and when he was attempting to inspire and persuade. What is clear is that there is no support in the provided citations that he was "radically transformed by the endemic poverty he was seeing. The citation specifically contradicts any radical transformation from the poverty: "But I continued to be, as we all continue to be always, a child of my environment", i.e., he was not yet radically transformed, he admits this even though being transformed by "poverty" fits the preferred narrative (one which YOU obviously prefer) better than being transformed by the success of aggression or the anger at that aggression.--Africangenesis (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be some way to note that the subject is the source, and much of these sources may be sanitized, self-serving and self-justifying reflection.--Africangenesis (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

AfricanGenesis, I believe I have a better understanding of your initial objection. I have taken your edits to the lead and merged them with some of my own to hopefully address the issues that you seem to be concerned with above. Please review my edits and the refs I have added and let me know here if you still continue to have issues with the sourcing or wording (I have listed the verbatim quotes with the refs in question). Contrary to what you may believe, I want to try my best to reach a conclusion that we both can agree with and believe is fair and representative of the sources. I have moved the whole issue with imperialism, monopolism etc to later in the intro since the comments were (as you noted in your edits) from 1965. I now think the lead makes better chronological sense and might correct what you believed was an faulty conclusion that Che reached all of those conclusions early and pre-Cuba. As for noting that he is the source, anyone clicking on the sources would see this. Moreover, I have tried to make the wording clear that these were his views. Let me know what you think.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is much more inline with what is supported by the citations. Thanx.--Africangenesis (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Great and you're welcome :). I am glad that we could collaborate and reach an agreement. Thanks for bringing the initial objection to the table and I believe this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Execution ?

Why does this page repeatedly refer to the death of Che Guevara as an execution? Guevara recieved no trial so it was not an execution by any legal definition, since there was no sentence to execute. A better word would be murder or homicide. Hmcst1 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is an uncomfortable truth for many inexperienced Wikipedia editors that the truth is always trumped by verifiability. In this case the cessation of his life by a third party is referred to as execution because that is what the verifiable sources say. If you have credible sources that state he was murdered then that would be welcomed as it would add balance to the article and provide a counterpoint to the sources that say his death was execution. However, without a source it is nothing more than an opinion or point of view, which has no place on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your verifiable sources may very well use the word execution but that is merely choice of words, not fact. I agree that credible sources that state he was murdered would add balance to the article. But are the authorities on Guevara in dispute over this point? It is semantics surely. My point that there was never any legal sentence to execute remains unaddressed. Hmcst1 (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Guevara was attempting to make a coup in Bolivia, to establish a communist dictatorship as in Cuba. He failed, he was captured, and the president (I repeat: the president!) ordered to kill him, wich was carried out by an official Bolivian military unit. Of course that it was an execution. If legal or illegal, if right or wrong, is another thing. It is as much official and state-sponsored as it can be, and that is what matters. Guevara was not a mere civilian doing nothing dangerous, and he was not killed by a petty random criminal or a soldier acting without orders. Cambalachero (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand truth and verifiability. There are verifiable sources which state that he was executed - this is what is entered into the Wikipedia article regardless of what you think the truth might be. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Biker Biker - why did you use an Edit summary saying "the truth will out"? In my experience, and almost certainly here, verifiability has little relationship to truth. But you do win on the verifiability front, for now. It's one of the unfortunate things about Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

HMCST1, the most WP:NPOV way to describe Guevara's killing (which is backed up in most of the sources) is as a summary execution. Terms such as murder or assassinate are occasionally used for Guevara, but carry with them additional stipulations and variables that are not universally agreed upon in his case. However, there also wasn’t enough of a judicial review to describe it as traditional Capital punishment either. It falls in that unfortunate war-time "gray area" between shooting a stranger for his wallet, and giving someone the electric chair after years of appeals.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Caption in Legacy Section

Resolved

Hello-- Under the "Legacy" section, there is a picture of the "pop art" stylized face of Che on a red flag. The caption claims the words on the flag are French and that the translation is "Long live Che!" This is incorrect. The words are Spanish, and they mean "Che lives!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.74.149 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 108, per: Vive, Viva, "Vive" used in this instance is the French, while "Viva" would be Spanish. Do you dispute this?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes- The article "El" before Che's name is Spanish; that article does not exist in French. Also, in either French or Spanish, a subjunctive "long live ____!" would begin with the verb ("¡Viva el Che!"), not with the name of the subject, whereas an indicative "Che lives!" (¡El Che vive!") would begin with his name, followed by the verb. So yes, I'm pretty sure that the language is Spanish because of the article and that the meaning is indicative ("Che lives!").--108.192.74.149 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 108, I am aware of the "el", my concern was the use of "Vive" instead of "Viva". Of note the caption used to read that it was Spanish before it was changed to French. I've decided to leave out the language and just list in the caption that it means "Che Lives", which I think we both agree on.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that works. Purely FYI: "Viva" in Spanish is subjunctive, whereas "vive" is indicative. The former expresses the idea of "long live" (a desire, a wish), whereas the latter expresses a simple assertion of fact ("He lives.") If I remember correctly (I am a fluent Spanish speaker but not a fluent French speaker), "vive" is both indicative and subjunctive in French.--108.192.74.149 (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

The text refers to Tanazina. I believe it should be changed to Tanzania. Pereyra (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess the most recently accepted date of birth for C.Guevara is the 14th of May, 1928. If I am wrong, please correct me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essaouira311 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Who are the indivisuals and what are the names on the picture --walking in Red square ? and is the date of Novemver 1964 correct and certified by the photographer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.193 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

is date certified correct for nNOVEMBER 1964 -WALK IN RED SQuARE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.193 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

what are the names of the men walking through red sqaue and is the date of November 1964 correct and certified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.193 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Stokley Carmichael

 Done

Under the "Legacy" section it states that Stokley Carmichael was the head of the Black Panther Party. This is totally incorrect. He is credited with creating the term "Black Power", and was closely associated with them, but was never their leader. The Black Panther Party was led by founders Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. Carmichael is better known as one of the key members and organizers of SNCC (the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) along with Congressman John Lewis who marched with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 208.54.44.255 (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) -- A Ph.D in African American Studies

Adjusted to "leader" instead of "head". Thanks  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, he was not a member of the Black Panther Party at all. He was familiar with them and worked in conjunction with them, sometimes, but was never a member, never their leader, and never their head. The article shouldn't say anything in reference to the Black Panther Party if Carmichael is being quoted. Not only is it false, but its misleading people seeking general information. A better identifier to use would be Civil Rights and Black Power Activist. 24.98.66.254 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Adjusted further to "Black Power leader".  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

 Done In the section "Post-execution and memorial" it says After his execution, Guevara's body was lashed to the landing skids of a helicopter. Shouldn't it say latched? - Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.64.25.3 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A common meaning for lashed is that of something being tied onto something else, typically with ropes. That sounds quite likely to me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

 Done The Legacy section contains the following text: "...a celebrated internationalist leader who abdicated violence to enforce a utopian philosophy of the collective good...". Shouldn't that be advocated instead of abdicated? --50.135.209.86 (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. I've fixed it. Thanks for drawing our attention to it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2013

Citation #39, "the shivering flesh-and-blood victims of capitalist exploitation," is attributed to Guevara, but was actually written by Jon Lee Anderson. Great article, but I noticed the error while doing research. aquilank@gmail.com 24.130.79.133 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Footnote 39 already atttibutes to Anderson. What do you think is missing? RudolfRed (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2013

Please change the origin countries of Che ("the eldest of five children in an Argentine family of Spanish, Basque and Irish descent."), for "the eldest of five children in an Argentine family of Spanish and Irish descent." since Basque Country is (and has been) always part of Spain. 193.4.248.222 (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This probably deserves discussion rather than a unilateral decision. Descent doesn't necessarily depend only on political boundaries, but mentioning both Spanish and Basque in this context does seem redundant. I'm not clear on which should should be mentioned, so let's let others weigh in. (Note: the relevant passage in the article carries a citation but no actual source.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 193, [1] Guevara's Basque background has now been referenced to the 2011 memoir by his father entitled Young Che: Memories of Che Guevara by His Father on page i (unnumbered). It lists his father's background as being of "Basque and Irish origin". [2] Your contention that the 3 million Basque of Euskal herria are merely "Spanish" would also be disputed by many of the aforementioned people (Basque country additionally pasts through both Spain and France). As to why Spanish was listed, Guevara had some separate Spanish roots as well on his mother's side, although until a specific reference can be located it is best to go with Basque and Irish as these are the two most commonly cited and now have a direct reference.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2013

 Done

I (Danny Erlandson) propose a few modest corrections to the Che Guevara article:
(1) Look at the second sentence under the section titled “Legacy”: “‘ . . . able to wield the pen and submachine gun with equal skill’, while prophesizing . . . ” Here the (bogus) word “PROPHESIZING” should be changed to “PROPHESYING” (I use all capital letters here simply to highlight the change I am proposing—in actuality it would make sense to use all small letters). At best “prophesizing” is substandard usage—certainly below the standards of Wikipedia, I should think. I am no doubt in the minority here, but to me the use of such a substandard or even entirely bogus word diminishes the credibility of the whole article—it comes across as if this article must have been written by some sloppy high school student in a rush to write a term paper.
(2) Furthermore, the comma is incorrectly placed in the above clause—in American usage, at least, the comma should go BEFORE or INSIDE the quotation mark, not after or outside it. Thus, “equal skill,” is preferable to “equal skill”, (but British usage is different here).
(3) There is a lack of parallelism or symmetry in the way the article treats the supporters and the detractors of Che in the section on Che’s “Legacy.” For example, Susan Sontag (a fan of Che) is said to have “expounded” that Che’s goal was the same as that of humanity itself. In contrast, Che’s detractors are said to have “theorized” that Che-inspired revolutions have reinforced militarism and protracted internecine conflicts. Why the difference? Why are NONE of the POSITIVE assertions of Che presented as theories, whereas the assertions of detractors are presented thus? If Sontag can “expound” a rather vague OPINION (after all, what exactly is the “cause of humanity itself”?), then why can’t Che’s detractors be credited with DEMONSTRATING some connections between Che’s revolutionary efforts and later civil conflicts? Indeed, the latter assertion can actually be demonstrated, at least to some extent, whereas as Sontag’s vague assertion is demonstrably NOT demonstrable, since it is not a matter of FACT at all. I think the whole section on Che’s “Legacy” thus needs an overhaul. FOR NOW, I SUGGEST REPLACING “EXPOUNDED” WITH “THEORIZED” FOR SONTAG’S ETHEREAL REMARK ABOUT CHE’S GOAL AND REPLACING “THEORIZED” WITH “DEMONSTRATED” FOR THE REMARKS OF CHE’S DETRACTORS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE REVOLUTIONS HE INSPIRED—or perhaps even more precisely: “Detractors have ATTEMPTED TO DEMONSTRATE that Che-inspired revolutions in much of Latin America had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years” (in case “demonstrated” is too strong a word here—again, I use all capital letters here simply to highlight the change I am proposing). Alas, the lack of parallelism in the section on Che’s “Legacy” hurts the credibility of the entire article, at least for me. For further support for my point, look at Vargas Llosa, Alvaro (July 11, 2005), “The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand” (The Independent Institute, accessed 10 August 2013). This article does NOT simply “theorize” the aforementioned connection but actually PROVES it, or at least makes a credible EFFORT to prove this point. --- Danny Erlandson (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Danny, with regards to your suggestions. (1) You are correct that the word “prophesying” should be used instead. Although I’m not sure such a dramatic and lengthy all caps (which imply yelling) essay was necessary for making such a suggestion. Nor is the existence of such a common typo indicative of a whole lengthy article. Rather than getting offended and assuming people are using "bogus" words -- or insulting any potential high school Wikipedia editors, it might be helpful to WP:AGF and presume that it was simply an error. (2) Wikipedia articles often vary between "American" and "British" English usage, the comma usage here could be adjusted to reflect the American usage since the rest of the article relies predominately on American spelling conventions etc. (3) Wikipedia does not aim for pure "parallelism", but rather WP:WEIGHT of the reliable sources on any given topic – (i.e. issues are not supposed to be seen as 50/50 per WP:UNDUE unless the existing literature does). As for "expound" it means "to present and explain (a theory or idea)" and is a synonym for "theorized". As for "demonstrating", that is an entirely different, as it means "clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence." Per WP:NPOV, the use of "demonstrate" in Wikipedia’s voice would not be acceptable. However, the phrase "attempted to demonstrate" could be used within Wiki guidelines. Lastly, as for Vargas Llosa’s relatively short and uncited editorial essay "The Killing Machine", it is already referenced, and mentioned in the specific section you are critiquing; however it does not "prove" anything, any more than some of the numerous laudatory essays on Che's "virtues" do their point of view. There have been dozens of biographies written about Guevara (many over 600-800 pgs), and they are not outweighed by the mere existence of a negative web essay by someone writing on behalf of a political institute. (4) I have adjusted #'s 1 & 2 per your suggestions, as for #3 I also have made the change to "attempted to demonstrate" and changed Sontag's theory to "supposed" instead of "expounded". Hopefully this addresses all or at least the majority of your concerns.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

Resolved

I'm currently reading Che's biography by Jon Lee Anderson (Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life) and according to him Che was actually born on May 14, but his parents concealed it as they had not been married when Che was conceived. The Spanish version of this article seems to indicate there is indeed controversy about his date of birth. As far as my Spanish allows me to understand, this revelation was brought about by a historian and personal friend of Che's mother, to whom she had confessed it. However, the Anderson's book being my only source at hand, and my Spanish being very poor, I'd rather not add this information myself. Does anyone else think that it should be noted in the article that the official date is contentious? Litawor (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

All of this information is already noted and included in the article in reference #1, seen --> here. The issue has been discussed in the past and the consensus has been to go with the official date (June 14), with a note of the discrepancy Anderson revealed for the first time in his 1997 biography.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Just curious why this article is mm/dd/yyyy, not dd/mm/yyyy formatted. Quis separabit? 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quis separabit, I believe the article uses the current format because [1] per WP:DATERET - that was the original format used by early contributors [2] per WP:STRONGNAT - of the various English speaking nations, Guevara is closest tied to the United States (which uses this format), rather than England et al (which uses the other). Do you believe either of these are in error or that it should be changed, and if so why?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Che Guevara's signature

I know I read something on wiki about Che's signature and whether he used the accented e. The article states no he did not. I found an album made in 1956 (I think, and was up for auction by Fraser Collectibles) where Che signed his name che using the accent on the e and he did not underscore the h. Can someone correct the page to include this in the discussion of his signature. I have a photo of the signature but can't figure out how to upload it. It can be found at fraserautographs.com, search Castro, Fidel & Che Guevara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dappledonkey (talk • contribs) 19:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Dappledonkey, per WP:Verify nothing could be noted in the article without a reliable source to reference it to. As for Guevara's signature, the common one seen on the article at present was his adapted signature as a public political figure in Cuba post 1959. Obviously as with any figure, he would have had an array of signatures throughout his life, and in this case he wasn't even known as the nickname "Che" until 1956, when it was given to him by the Cubans for what they saw as his frequent and odd use of the word in Argentine Spanish. I'm also not aware of him signing anything as his nickname "Che" in 1956 or earlier however, though it is possible it occurred. Lastly, I checked the sight you mention and was unable to find anything. If you can find a link for this signature, please include it here. Thanks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Che Guevara Artist?

I have read several articles that state Che was 'fond of painting, had a good grasp of art history, and wasn't bad with watercolours.' Does anyone have any knowledge of Che's art, i.e., has any of his art survived the years, is any of his art available for public viewing anywhere, i.e., in a museum or art gallery? Also, in many of Che's writings he makes reference to various characters in Cervantes, Don Quixote. Aside from being one of his favorite books, does anyone have any knowledge about his fondness for Don Quixote?Dappledonkey 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Dappledonkey, article talk pages are not usually used as forums for general discussion of the subject (per WP:Forum}, but since it isn't clear whether you are implicitly suggesting this material should be included in the article, here are a few links that might interest you. This --> article discusses Che's time as a photographer. As you state, he also did some painting. As for Don Quixote, it was Guevara's favorite book, and as a result it was the first book following the 1959 Revolution published and disbursed for free by the Cuban state to the Cuban people --> reference. Lastly, perhaps of interest, Guevara in his last 1965 letter to his parents, draws a parallel to himself and Don Quixote (while making reference to his faithful horse), stating "Once again I feel beneath my heels the ribs of Rocinante. Once more, I'm on the road with my shield on my arm" --> letter. I hope this helps.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

RedThoreau: The intent of my comments (above) was to have inserted into the article on Che Guevara the information about his interest in art and confirmation that he did paint. My source for his interest in art and whether or not he painted was an interview Isof Lavretsky (Russian) did in 1969 at the home of Alberto Grando, with his wife Julia, and Che's father, Don Ernesto Guevara Lynch. In this interview, Che's father stated, "Ernesto was also fond of painting, had a good grasp of art history, and wasn't bad with watercolours." He also stated, "My son loved impressionists best." I know of his interest in Don Quixote and the many references he made in letters he wrote to his family where he appeared to be identifying with Quixote! My reason for the interest in his painting is I purchased a portrait of Don Quixote at a flea market in Richmond and the artist signed it che′ with an underscore under the h and an accent mark on the e. I have a photo of Che's signature (from 1956) where he used the accent mark on the e. The painting I purchased is about 40-60 years old, is on a burlap type canvas that was not on a stretched, and was apparently nailed to a solid surface for painting. I'm trying to determine whether or not Che Guevara was the artist. Based on his interest in Don Quixote, coupled with his fathers statement that he was fond of painting...I'm leaning towards that possibility but without positive confirmation or proof (other pieces of his artwork) that he did, in fact, paint, I am not convinced he did this painting. 76.120.213.218 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Signed dabbledonkey

IP 76 (i.e. dabbledonkey), I agree with you that the article could benefit from mentioning his appreciation for art and even how he partook in it (as a photographer and painter). One issue however is where to insert this material so that it fits with the general flow of the article. Perhaps in his early life it could be mentioned, but there really isn't a place right now for personal anecdotes that relate to his time as an adult. What would you recommend or suggest? Moreover, do you have a viewable source for the interview you speak of (it could be included)? As for the photo of Che's signature from 1956, what is it from? I ask because in 1956 he wasn't a notable public figure for all intents and purposes. I do know that he adapted his signature when he became a public figure in Cuba (post 1959) to the one currently showed on the article, but don't recall seeing his signature pre 1957 on anything before. Of note, he received the nickname "Che" from the Cubans he met in Mexico City around 1956, so it would be unlikely to see him signing anything with that name before then, and I'm not even sure he would have signed it on anything pre-Granma expedition (Nov 1956). As for this garage sale painting popping up in Richmond, Virginia, I guess it is possible, but I'd wager highly unlikely. One possibility could be sending a copy to the Che Guevara Studies Center in Havana, Cuba, and seeing if they can vouch for its authenticity.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Redthoreau, If you think the article would benefit from inserting the information about his interest in art (photography and painting) I agree it should be included in his early life. The website I found his signature with the accented e was at Frasers Collectibles (framers autographs.com) where there is a PDF version of their catalogue for autographs coming up for sale. The autograph is in the Album Expedicionarios del Granma which is an album made featuring photos and info on the revolutionaries who were on the Granma when it invaded Cuba. The I. Lavretsky interview was located on a Russian website (chehasta.narod.ru) and was done in 1969 but not published until around 1977. I have found another person (in NC) that has a painting also signed Che. Her painting has a sticker on the back that says it was framed at an art shop in Ft. Lauderdale in 1973. I've contacted the Che Guevara Studies Center and the response I received was "revolutionaries don't have time to paint" and che only painted in his youth. These paintings are not the work of a child and as you stated, it was Nico Lopez that gave Che his nickname in 1954, while living in Mexico. Dappledonkey (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

mercenary

I suggested several days ago that "mercenary" should be added to the list of occupations that Guevara held. My suggestion can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara&oldid=581570924. user:RedThoreau deleted my suggestion from the talk page. His edit can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara&oldid=582228322. -First, let's forget about the suggestion for the moment. I think it's more important to note that user:RedThoreau has hi-jacked this article. He has assumed ownership and won't let other contributors edit unless the edit agrees with his point of view. -Second, I was using the talkpage in an appropriate manner, and exactly the way in which it is intended to be used. Nevertheless, he deleted my suggestion. I find this extremely concerning, as it is a very overt way of maintaining his dominion over this article. To say that it was a "disruptive edit" is an understatement. Not only is he controlling the article, but also the discussion of it. -Third, I stand by my original suggestion. More importantly, Oxford agrees: noun (plural mercenaries). a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles/mercenary?q=mercenary. and Webster agrees: http://i.word.com/idictionary/mercenary. -Fourth, no, I don't have an account, and yes my IP address is different from my original suggestion to this one. I am traveling at the moment. --200.58.150.146 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 200, despite your requests to "forget the suggestion"; it is the key point of contention in the issue. Your edit was removed as trolling (per WP:DENY), which in hindsight I guess actually gave you too much credit, as apparently you genuinely believe it. Your statement was twofold, (1) first you contended with no evidence that "Guevara is most famous for being a mercenary", a suggestion so patently absurd that I can't even believe I am expending time addressing it. Guevara is famous for being many things i.e. revolutionary, guerrilla theorist, author, leftist poster symbol, "ambiguous face on a t-shirt" etc; yet per WP:Verify, I challenge you to find a single source in existence - much less a reputable one, or a majority of them per WP:Weight - that would state he is most known for being a mercenary. (2) You state his occupation should be listed as a mercenary. However, in none of the Guevara biographies (I've read over 20) is such a claim made that he even was one, nor is it even made in those explicitly unfavorable works by Guevara’s critics (they may call him a killer, or madman, or evil), but he is not criticized as merely being a guy for hire, who was solely motivated to shop out his services to anyone that would pay him. Wikipedia is not a place for random ideas that pop in anyone's head (i.e. "hmm, I think we should refer to Gandhi primarily as a tailor because he made his own clothes.") Furthermore, not only was Guevara never "a professional soldier for hire" – to use your definition, but what you are doing by looking up a definition and hypothesizing that Guevara meets it, is a case of WP:OR and also not allowed per Wiki policy. Since you say you do not have an account, and made your first edit ever from the last ip address, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with Wiki guidelines before making accusations that others are not adhering to them. As a shameless plug, here is my own compilation --> WP:REDWISDOM.

(3) Lastly, to your current frustration that since your ridiculous claim was not given merit (see WP:TPO), and that this implies I am "hijacking" the article, or "owning" it, I'd point out that going through this current TP (and even its history) shows that often times lengthy periods of time go by before I even addressed someone's request - above you will see me waiting 13 and 20 days on separate occasions, as I might only even look at this article every few weeks when there isn't an active discussion. During this time anyone is also free to focus on people's concerns. The fact that I am the only one that does so is not proof that I am controlling the debate, but that I am the only one interested in handling people's suggestions (and often including them). This article experiences very little TP debate presently not because I am "owning it", but because of the fact that over the years countless hours of time have been spent addressing people's concerns and following Wiki guidelines to produce a thorough high-quality article which summarizes the subject. Although as with any controversial individual, you will occasionally have politically motivated people who jump in to say the article is too pro or anti Che (these people's bias can't be acquiesced and still adhere to WP:NPOV), the truth is that the article is very much in line with available reliable sources on the topic. Like anyone you are free to participate (that is the beauty of Wikipedia), but at the end of the day our obligation is to produce an accurate Encyclopedia, not a collection of all the random opinions of any ip address in the world on a given topic.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You have indeed hijacked the article. You consider yourself to be the approver for "handling" (in your words) suggested edits. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with wp:tpo, especially with the section regarding editing or deleting others' edits. Regarding Guevara, he was indeed a mercenary. I'm sorry if the word offends you. The fact is that he fought in three wars as a foreigner. He was not a Cuban when he fought in the Cuban Revolution. This isn't original research. It's a dictionary. --201.217.130.58 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 200, "handling" refers to addressing them – as in attempting to include someone's suggestion, altering the article when they catch an error or typo and note it on the TP, and working towards WP:Consensus. In cases of IP users (since they cannot edit protected articles), such actions are exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. For instance, I am the only one attempting to address or "handle" your ridiculous contention that Guevara's occupation was as a mercenary, as thus far nobody else in the last week seems interested in doing so. To the claim itself, you apparently now have a misunderstanding of your own definition, and believe that "foreigner" is synonymous with "mercenary" which they are not. Per WP:Verify you have yet to provide ANY corroborating references, or show how the majority of them (per WP:Weight) view Guevara this way. Since that can't occur, as they do not, then you will continue to remain disappointed. That has nothing to do with "hijacking" and everything to do with reality.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

RedThoreau: How is it "working towards consensus" if you have appointed yourself as the approver (aka "handler") of suggestions? That's not a consensus by any means. Instead of striving for consensus (as you claim), you strive for dissensus by deleting entries on the talk page. THAT'S the reality. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See for example: Joshua Perper and Stephen Cina. When Doctors Kill Who, Why, and How. New York: Copernicus Books. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 189/200 (same person), I am not 'the' approver of suggestions, but in cases of IP's on protected articles, a registered user has to be the one to include their addition. So if nobody else steps in, I do my best to include the suggested contributions of IP users when they are reasonable and based in reality (yours isn't). I am also not the only one who can do this (any registered user can), and in cases when only I bother to attempt, it is not a sign of hijacking or ownership. I deleted your suggestion because it was clear that you were pov trolling, and your refusal to offer even a single reference of corroboration since confirms I was correct. Take the current situation, your absurd suggestion stands on the TP and nobody is even interested in giving it any attention. You are now only interested in arguing for the sake of it, but an article's talk page is not a WP:Forum, and you're only wasting my time and Wikipedia's albeit limitless bandwidth. No reliable sources list Guevara as a mercenary, so per WP:Verify Wikipedia will not be. End of story.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

RedThoreau, as you say, non-registered users rely on registered users to include their suggestion. That can't happen if a registered user unilaterally decides to delete said suggestion without a justifiable reason. I understand your desire to keep this page free from trolling and to ensure that it doesn't become a forum. You can verify using the source that I listed above that my suggestion was not merely a viewpoint and it wasn't trolling. The authors have good credentials and it was published by Springer. As they say, "critics" call Guevara a "mercenary." It seems that you are trying to steer the page away from what many academics believe. The fact that you deleted my suggestion without reason coupled with your unwillingness to consider reliable and verifiable sources seems to prove it. --187.14.218.213 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 187/189/200 (same person), I looked up the book you cite - When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How, and it only devotes two pages to Guevara (pgs 122-124). As forensic pathologists they may be a reliable source on many medical topics, but the authors Joshua Perper and Stephen Cina would not be sources one would go to on the topic of Che Guevara (especially when overriding his own established biographers). There are 800+ page biographies solely on Guevara, by authors who have spent years researching the man (i.e. Jon Lee Anderson, Jorge G. Castaneda and Paco Ignacio Taibo II - just to name a few). For the record, none of the aforementioned authors mention that "mercenary" would be considered one of Guevara's occupations as you contend - see WP:Weight and WP:Fringe. Furthermore, you seem to be moving the goal post. As you point out, these medical doctors state that "critics" call Guevara a "mercenary" as an epithet, but that doesn’t mean that Wikipedia should list that definitively in our voice as his occupation. Critics also call him a "butcher", "murderer", or "executioner", but we also wouldn't list that as one of his occupations either. Making note in the Legacy section of how his detractors view him is different from declaratively stating that one of his jobs was as a mercenary in Wikipedia's own voice.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You know... it's really not that important to me. Obviously you are more dedicated to keeping Wikipedia unreliable than I am to improving it. So please continue dictating what can and cannot be here. Keep on deleting suggestions and unilaterally deciding what goes in and what doesn't go in. Although you're seemingly resistant to the idea of improving the article, I'll give you and other editors my suggestions for improving it. Be consistent. Either stick to well-established Latin Americanists such as Thomas Wright, and Skidmore Smith and Green and well-established Guevara-ists (already listed by RedThoreau) such as Anderson or Castañeda. But please, don't preach "reliability" or question Perper and Cina, when the article considers "reliable" extremists such as Richard Gott, Ariel_Dorfman, Álvaro_Vargas_Llosa, or the topic of the article himself. If those fellows are up to snuff, perhaps Humberto Fontova is reliable also. At least strive for consistency. The fact that you have read all of his biographies only indicates that you adore him. It doesn't indicate that your qualified to dictate what should or shouldn't be included on his Wikipedia's entry.--189.122.201.52 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

IP 187/189/200 (same person), if you say so, but apparently it was "important" enough for you to make 5 replies, over 25 days, with 3 IP addresses, throughout 2 countries - wasting mine and your time on it. I am dedicated to keeping Wikipedia a reliable Encyclopedia by limiting the inclusion of random WP:Fringe points of view that would harm our credibility, so thank you. But I don't dictate what can be here, the policies of the project do (which is why your proposal can't be included). Your suggestions are noted on my part, although again you still seem not to "get it", as is life. Lastly, it's unfortunate that you believe studying a person automatically implies unconditional adoration (and ironic because you yourself list 2 writers who are both critical of Che and one assumes read the same books), but perhaps that insinuation says more about your own objectivity than it does anyone else's. Best of luck to you.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the Legacy section

 Done

I have a few issues with the "legacy" section, specifically the first paragraph. That bit claims that Che's life "ethos" was inherently contradictory, in wikipedia's voice:

"he contradictions of his ethos at various points in his life have created a complex character of unending duality."

This is problematic, because his supporters would claim the so-called contradictions are actually just applications of his ideology, while his detractors are more likely to go for the argument presented above. I suggest changing it to something more like "His life has been perceived as contradictory" or "he has had a variety of influences" or some such. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"...a complex character of unending duality" is clearly POV unless it is a direct quote. I agree with the gist of your suggestions, with the caveat that weasel words are avoided. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Guevara's "complexity" and "duality" are noted by nearly all of his biographers, including the utilized reference of Michael Löwy. However, I see as you contend that the first part of "contradictions" written that way in Wikipedia's voice, gives the impression that it is fact, rather than opinion (regardless of how pervasive it may be). As for fixing it, there are many options. We could remove the line "contradictions of his ethos" and simply say "researchers often uncover a complex character of unending duality ..." -or- "researchers often portray a complex character of unending duality ..." etc. I am open to other suggestions as well or anything you believe might alleviate the issue. Ohnoitsjamie what do you think? The later line about "seemingly diametrically opposed qualities" I feel is ok, as it is only acknowledging that some may find these to be in contradiction, not that they necessarily are.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of "unending" would largely address the voice issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

* Vanamonde93, I have added the word "perceived" before contradictions - per your suggestion.

* Ohnoitsjamie, I have removed the word "unending" before duality - per your suggestion.

Please let me know if this resolves your concern.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't doubt that you can find the words "complex" and "duality" in plenty of good sources regarding the subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's an improvement, thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014: Article LENGTH; summary style; GA-reassessment

As an uninvolved registered user who has examined the 2008 Featured Article review that led to Che Guevara's being demoted, which is when user:Redthoreau seems to have begun curating the article, I think it is my responsibility to raise the issue of a follow-up Good Article-status reassessment. Editing during the ensuing years has not restored this article to the level of a Featured Article, and I am doubtful that it even satisfies the good article criteria, failing on length as but one example (specifically, the length of readable prose - "A good article is - Broad in its coverage: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).").

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding material such as: footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.); diagrams and images; tables and lists; Wikilinks and external URLs; and formatting and mark-up.

There may be near-limitless storage capacity available in Wikipedia for encyclopedic content, but excessively-long articles are more difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend, and I believe Che Guevara has been expanded well beyond what could be considered appropriate according to WP:SIZE. Furthermore, the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia:Summary_style do not seem to have been respected despite the existence of sub-articles, and critical analysis may be lacking, especially in light of what could appear to be efforts by user:Redthoreau to resist editors seeking to include what could be reliably-sourced material that might be perceived as 'critical' of Guevara.

Just as this article was demoted after a Featured Article review in 2008, I believe its current status as a "Good Article" merits reconsideration, but because delisting could be seen as controversial, I will first suggest a community (GA) reassessment in case there are those who would oppose this action. I have not yet appended {{subst:GAR}} or any other possibly-appropriate tags, however. joepa^T 06:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Joep01, you bring up several issues, which I hope to address individually:

(a) Your initial claim I feel is incorrect as I believe it implies that the article was demoted from FA to GA in 2008. The reality is that the article was demoted from FA in April 2008 back to a regular article, but then it was promoted more than a year later in August 2009 back to a GA (this version), after an assessment conducted by User:Maunus, seen --> here. Thus the "follow-up Good Article-status reassessment" that you are suggesting should take place post the 2008 demotion, already occurred in 2009. As a first step for instance, you could possibly contact Maunus to see if they would still stand by their 2009 promotion with the article's current state?

(b) I'm not sure if you're using "curator" towards me as a criticism, but I would point out that although I am an active editor who responds on the TP frequently after seeing that nobody else has, and I do my best to accommodate reasonable IP requests for addition, the majority of the article's overall edits have not been made by me.

(c) Per your critique that the article has become too long WP:LENGTH, I admit that could be a valid point (although I believe Wikipedia's suggested lengths are too short generally). One of the difficulties with Guevara as a subject is the dearth of material, as visible by the fact that what many see as the definitive biography on Che by Jon Lee Anderson, is over 800 pages. However, if length is your primary concern with the article, then before a GA assessment, I believe the first step would be to broach the topic on the article's talk page here (as you've done) and see what the consensus is and if editors are interested in working to both trim it down and move information to related sub-articles. I'd certainly be willing to participate in such an endeavor if the consensus was that it was necessary.

(d) Lastly, I'd request to know what evidence you are basing your claim that "critical analysis may be lacking" on? Since you mentioned me in relation to this, I would contend that I haven't "rejected" as you say, any "reliably-sourced material that might be perceived as 'critical' of Guevara." In fact, despite the occasional claims from IP editors here on the talk page who want all their random unsourced attacks included in the article, I have been the primary one to expand sourced criticism in the Legacy section. Although yes, if someone's primary source of conflicting WP:Fringe information on Guevara is a political website/blog or editorialized essay denouncing him – rather than one of his primary peer-reviewed biographies – then yes the article may incorrectly appear "favorable". But that is to be expected with any controversial political figure (both right and left), and there have even been editors on the TP who accuse the opposite, that the article isn't "pro-Che" enough. To these points, I would add that for such a polarizing figure, the article itself has been very stable and edit-war free for a long time (with 73% of those on reader feedback saying they "found what they were looking for"), which I believe is a testament to the thoroughness of material included, and yes the quality of the article.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture

I've seen lots of articles here on Wikipedia that have those ugly 'Trivia' or 'In pop culture' sections but surprisingly we don't have one here. I'd suggest adding one. On those bleeding-heart middle class 'liberals' posing with a T shirt with the picture of that criminal on it, a cigarette of weed on the lips and a Red Flag in the hand - it's a really common sight in the Western world. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• There's already a Che Guevara in popular culture article. You may want to post your suggestions there. Cheers, Mophedd (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Throw your shoe at HRClinton?

Headine-1: Operation ‘Cynthia’ — Was the Woman Who Threw a Shoe at Hillary Clinton a Hardcore Leftist?

• http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/11/operation-cynthia-was-the-woman-who-threw-a-shoe-at-hillary-clinton-a-hardcore-leftist/

QUOTE: “After the shoe whizzed past, several feet away from Clinton, a blond woman raised her hands above her head and walked to the back of the room. Security quickly grabbed her and she’ll apparently face criminal charges. The Wall Street Journal picks up an interesting bit from the moment: The shoe-thrower also threw something else. An attendee later handed a reporter a piece of paper that was apparently also thrown by the woman. It appeared to be a copy of a Department of Defense document labeled confidential and dated August 1967; it referred to an operation “Cynthia” in Bolivia. There was a Bolivian army operation of that name in 1967 to capture revolutionary Che Guevara.” [Interesting!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: Watch Hillary Clinton Narrowly Escape Getting Hit by Shoe Thrown at Her at Las Vegas Event

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/watch-hillary-clinton-narrowly-escape-getting-hit-by-shoe-thrown-at-her-at-las-vegas-event/

QUOTE: “LAS VEGAS (AP) — A woman was taken into federal custody Thursday after throwing a shoe at Hillary Clinton as the former Secretary of State began a Las Vegas convention keynote speech. The incident happened moments after Clinton took the stage before an Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries meeting at the Mandalay Bay resort.” [Consider the Che Guevara related paper she also threw.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Headine-3: Shoe thrown at Hillary Clinton during speech

• http://online.wsj.com/article/APb8616fbac9564fdca615a93b44a55dce.html

QUOTE: “[A] woman was taken into federal custody after admitting she threw the shoe. She didn't say why she did it.” [Protestor?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole...

"...biting one of his wrists to avoid crying..." This article is full of hearsay and nonsense, only for the purpose of sensationalizing this guy as some sort of hero. I have no opinion about him, as shouldn't anyone else who was born after 1967 (or most born before then), because all of the accounts of his life are lies and utter nonsense. If hippies want to find a Marxist to glorify, look no further than the many who are alive today, or to the Weather Underground. Please, somebody, remove this nonsense from Wikipedia. I did not know that Wikipedia was going to be co-opted by Occupy Wall Street trash... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chechechecheche (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're aware that this article is very well supplied with RELIABLE sources, right? Please supply sources of your own to counter anything written in the article. Reliable sources only. This is how Wikipedia works. 85.165.227.94 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Checheche, "nonsense" is a matter of opinion and others can judge your objectivity on the matter based on your theories surrounding "hippies" and "Occupy trash". However, all of your supposed "hearsay" is cited per Wiki policies of WP:Verify & WP:Reliable, including the specific words in question. As the stated reference notes, on pg. 739 of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life – often cited as the definitive work on the subject – biographer Jon Lee Anderson states "as Che writhed on the ground, apparently biting one of his wrists in an effort to avoid crying out". Considering that Anderson's five years of research (including speaking with those present for the execution) was what located Guevara's body 30 years after it was hidden, I feel we can safely assume he is more informed on the topic than your WP:OR is.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

Ernesto 'Che' Guevara's birthday is wrong. He was born on May 14th 1928. His mother pushed his birth date back one month when he was born. Because she was three months pregnant when she married Che's father, once married the couple left Buenos Aires for the remote jungle backwater of Misiones. There as her husband set himself up as a yerba mate planter, she went through her pregnancy away from the prying eyes of Buenos Aires society. A doctor friend falsified the date on the birth certificate, moving it back by one month to help shield the from scandal.

Source 'Che Guevara A Revolutionary Life' Jon Lee Anderson Kieran 'Che' Bickell (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Extremist

I think the word "extremist" could be used in this article SOMEWHERE to describe Che. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.94.232 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 39.42.44.141 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Che Guevara was a racist

I understand that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but we need to see beyond that and acknowledge the fact that Che was a racist. What about this famous quote from his own book, "The Motorcycle Diaries:"

"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." (found on p. 161)

I don't see any evidence of that on this page. I am sure that this comment will be ignored and probably erased, because wikipedia is so in favor of free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.107.173 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

IP 50, you're entitled to your own albeit irrelevant opinion that Wiki has a "liberal bias", but such a belief doesn't make it so. Our role as editors is to reflect the findings of WP:Reliable sources on a given topic per WP:SOURCE, in proportionality to their presence per WP:UNDUE, and with respect for our policies such as WP:NPOV. You unequivocally declare that "Che was racist", as if this is simply a fact, which it isn't. In fact, you won't find such an observation made in any of the 3 main biographies on Guevara (Anderson, Castañeda, Taibo II), as well as nearly every other book on him, except for 1 polemical WP:Fringe work (which yes I've read) denouncing the "useful idiots" who supposedly idolize him.

First, the issue of this diary quote has been discussed at great length and detail throughout the years on this talk page, most recently in Jan of 2010, see this --> archived link. As this shows, you're cherry picking a racist diary observation that Che had as a young man when he encountered blacks for the first time, and then extrapolating that he was thus a racist (ostensibly for his entire life). However, as his biographer Anderson notes, he declared himself a "transformed man" shortly after writing those words, and then spent the rest of his life from age 25-39 dedicated to speaking out against racism and taking actions which if anything, would be described as "anti-racist". Just to name a few things, in those years Che: pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, spoke out against the KKK and "discrimination" of blacks in the U.S., denounced South African apartheid before the U.N. in 1964, fought with an all-black army in the African Congo against white mercenaries, offered to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique against the Portuguese, and did all these things while entrusting his protection by his friend and bodyguard Harry "Pombo" Villegas (an Afro-Cuban) --> seen here. There's also the recollection of Che's Congolese interpreter Freddy Ilanga to the BBC in 2005, that Che "showed the same respect to black people as he did to whites" --> Article.

But in case you didn't want to take my word for it (based on his biographies), the fact-checking website PolitiFact.com took up this issue in April of 2013 --> see article, following Cuban-American U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's accusations of Che's racism based on this same passage. To judge the veracity they contacted Che biographers Jon Lee Anderson and Jorge Castaneda, along with "multiple professors who are experts in Cuban or Latin American studies". Their majority contention was that Che was "racially inclusive in his actions", and "espoused anti-racist, egalitarian ideals", with Castañeda specifically remarking "I think it is a stretch to call him a racist. There are so many other things to criticize Che Guevara for. That's not one of them." In fact, Andy Gomez, from the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban-American Studies, who himself unsympathetically refers to Che as a "cold-blooded murderer", even contends that "racist isn't one of the top 10 descriptors he would use of Guevara." * For the record, the sources would allow us to note how Guevara wrote those words when he was younger, and then had a transformation into someone who advocated against racism (if that is what the new WP:Consensus on the talk page is for), but since your only 2 edits in the last 3 months have been to WP:SOAPBOX on this talk page and --> another one that "Wikipedia has a liberal bias!", it's hard to believe you're here to build a neutral encyclopedia.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies in advance as I am not Wiki-literate, and don't know how to start a new topic, so I have attached it to this as being the nearest similar subject. I have been coming across a lot of sites that describe Guevara as both racist and homophobic. On one site he is described as killing gays diagnosed as HIV. Now I know that this cannot possibly be true, because he was dead before HIV was ever diagnosed. This is clearly a smear. However, is there any credible evidence to suggest that he was homophobic?

My own suspicions are that these stories are fabrications, which leads me to ask, should there be a section listing these and various other allegations that have been made such as the claims of racism, and a comment as to the credibility of these claims80.111.155.138 (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If you produce reliable sources either supporting or describing these claims, then inclusion may be considered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am not sure you understood me. What I was saying, is that I came across these allegations about homophobia, though the same sources also make the allegations of racism too. If you google "was che guevara homophobic" there are plenty of sites that report he was both homophobic and racist. Some of the more lurid go on to report that he is said to have enjoyed executing gays or putting them in concentration camps. It is also not difficult to find sites that claim he victimised HIV sufferers, even though he was dead before the discovery of HIV. My point is that WIKI seem to have done a good job demolishing the racism allegations, and it appears that the people who are putting these about are also the same people who are making the homophobe claims.

Accordingly, would it be inappropraite to make a comment along the lines of: "Since his death a number of sources have made allegations to the effect that he was both racist and homophobic. With regard to the former, there is substantial evidence to show that he fought alongside black soldiers in various conflicts willingly. With regard to the second of these two claims some of the allegations were that he murdered HIV sufferers. This can clearly be shown to be incorrect as HIV was not diagnosed until 1981, some 14 years after Guevara was killed.80.111.155.138 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Point remains, that if he made those remarks, it should be listed within quotes, period. --196.210.231.103 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthday

Che was actually born on the 14th May 1928....his parents registered the birth late due to his mother being pregnant at the time of her marriage ,and being unmarried and pregnant in Catholic Argentina at that time was looked down and frowned upon 90.199.202.232 (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see end note --> 1 for an explanation on this issue. Thanks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Caption correction

Under "Cuban Revolution", a picture has the following caption: "Guevara atop a mule in Las Villas province, Cuba, November 1958". This should be corrected, as the animal in question is a horse, not a mule. He sometimes rode mules, but evidently not in this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.207.181 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

An array of sources claim this is indeed a mule, not a horse. Do you have anything to prove the contrary?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

I suggest we change "Argentine" to "Argentine-born" similar to "German-born" in the lead of Albert Einstein since he spent most of his adult life outside of Argentina. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. He referred to himself as an "Argentine", he is commonly referred to as an "Argentine" in most sources, and he lived the majority of his life in Argentina (24 of his 39 years). Yes he saw himself as an internationalist politically, but he never relinquished his Argentine identity. In fact, it was his hope when killed that he would ultimately return to Argentina to lead a revolution there.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbenz coup bias sentence

Here is an example of a subtle but important bias that runs throughout the article and throughout most histories of the relationship between the United States and Latin America: To quote: "As a result, the United States' CIA sponsored an army that invaded the country and installed the right-wing dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas.[48]" While it is true that the CIA "sponsored" an army (depending on the exact definition of "sponsored"), it is false that the CIA "installed" a new government. As with almost all interventions in Latin America, the CIA depended on strong local forces to organize and direct armed resistance and to form a government. The CIA was powerless to "install" anything unless many Guatemalans worked together to conduct the coup and form a new government. In addition to military figures, exiled political figures, student groups, workers, and business interests participated in the coup. Therefore, the article shows the typical bias to assert that the United States is the cause of everything, whereas the truth was that popular, authentically anti-Communist groups had risen up organically within Guatemala. These anti-Communist groups were deprived of their civil rights by the Arbenz government. Communist groups who received support from the Soviet Union were not deprived of their civil rights. A final point is that the only documentation in the article given for the idea that the U. S. "installed" a government is a paper by Guevara himself (reference #48). Any coup and the formation of any government are much more complex that the subtly biased sentence suggests.<Thyne, Clayton L (2010) Supporter of stability or agent of agitation? The effect of United States foreign policy on coups in Latin America, 1960–1999. Journal of Peace Research 47(4): 449–461.></ref><Central Intelligence Agency, Job 79-01025A, Box 151, Folder 4. Secret. ><U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations, Guatemala, 1952-1954 Released by the Office of the Historian,Documents 1-31>181.120.81.246 (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

IP 181, I agree with you that the issue was not given proper explanation and context, and that it could have utilized better sourcing, thus I have added a paragraph sourced to The History Channel, who has a succinct explanation of the situation --> Article. To further clarify, reference #48 was Guevara’s father, and is no longer utilized for that claim. Below is the new paragraph sourced to the aforementioned article:

On May 15, 1954, a shipment of Škoda infantry and light artillery weapons was dispatched from Communist Czechoslovakia for the Arbenz Government and arrived in Puerto Barrios.[53] As a result, the United States government—which since 1953 had been tasked by President Eisenhower to remove Arbenz from power in the multifaceted CIA operation code named PBSUCCESS—responded by saturating Guatemala with anti-Arbenz propaganda through radio and dropped leaflets, and began bombing raids using unmarked airplanes.[54] The United States also sponsored a force of several hundred Guatemalan refugees and mercenaries who were headed by Castillo Armas to help remove the Arbenz government. Though the impact of the U.S. actions on subsequent events is debatable, by late June, Arbenz came to the conclusion that resistance against the "giant of the north" was futile and resigned.[54] This allowed Armas and his CIA-assisted forces to march into Guatemala City and establish a military junta, which would twelve days later on July 8, elect him President.[54] Consequently, the Armas regime then consolidated power by rounding up hundreds of suspected communists and executed hundreds of prisoners, while crushing the previously flourishing labor unions and restoring all of United Fruits previous land holdings.[54]

If you still have further concerns, or believe information is missing, please list them here? Thank you.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

This article is more like a panegyric than an objective article, even Mother Theresa has a Criticism section! Please remove favorable interpretations and leave only the facts. There are a lot of sources that claim Che Guevara is just a killer and totalitarian tyrant, for example [this article]. Radu Borza (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Radu Borza, you are obviously welcome to your own opinion, but Wikipedia doesn’t produce articles to satisfy the political opinions of 100% of the population, which would be impossible. Your point with regards to Mother Teresa would also be an irrelevant case of --> WP:OSE, and as for a criticism section, they should be avoided per Wiki policy, see --> WP:NOCRIT. As editors, we are here to replicate the reliable sources on a given topic, with respect to the proportionality of those views contained within those sources. This article does that very effectively I would contend, and the legacy section contains both positive and negative diagnoses on Guevara’s actions. The case could just as easily be made by a Guevara supporter that the article’s negative evaluations should be removed, and that would be equally as invalid as your claim to “remove favorable interpretations”.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a criticism section. The article doesn't seem as neutral as it would be with some talk of criticism. That being said, we should adhere very closely to WP:CSECTION. Che Guevara is by no means without his fair share of reasonable criticism, and people who were far less controversial have criticism sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ5788 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Execution Detail

Attributing Ray, Michèle (March 1968). "In Cold Blood: The Execution of Che by the CIA". Ramparts Magazine: 33, and, Anderson 1997, p. 739, the Wiki entry is as follows:

A few minutes later, Sergeant Terán entered the hut and immediately ordered the other soldiers out. Alone with Terán, Che Guevara then stood up and spoke to his executioner: "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot. Do it." Terán responded by pointing his M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle at Guevara, but hesitated upon which Guevara angrily spat at Terán which were his last words: "Shoot me, you coward! You are only going to kill a man!"[211] Terán then opened fire, hitting Guevara in the arms and legs. For a few seconds, Guevara writhed on the ground, apparently biting one of his wrists to avoid crying out. Terán then fired several times again, wounding him fatally in the chest. Che Guevara was pronounced dead at 1:10 pm local time according to Rodríguez.[211] In all, Guevara was shot nine times by Terán. This included five times in his legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and finally in the throat.[206]

While both sources note Teran used a M1 Garand rifle to execute Che and also note Teran, alone, was the only shooter, there is no mention of him reloading the rifle which has a magazine capacity of only 8 rounds. This discrepancy has yet to be explained. There is no mention of any other firearm used by Teran but the accounts of Che's death are otherwise very detailed. 98.22.244.203 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Max Skeans

IP 98 / Max, I believe the cause of this discrepancy is the fact that Guevara was already wounded once from the battle in which he was captured, which would explain how he ended up with 9 bullet wounds, after his execution by a gun with 8 rounds. However, early reporting didn’t yet have knowledge of his earlier wound to make up for the discrepancy, and subsequent observers haven’t given the issue as much thought as you have.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

'The Death of Che Guevara: Declassified' - http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/

OCTOBER 9, 1967: Early in the morning, the unit receives the order to execute Guevara and the other prisoners. Lt. Pérez asks Guevara if he wishes anything before his execution. Guevara replies that he only wishes to "die with a full stomach." Pérez asks him if he is a "materialist" and Guevara answers only "perhaps." When Sgt. Terán (the executioner) enters the room, Guevara stands up with his hands tied and states, "I know what you have come for I am ready." Terán tells him to be seated and leaves the room for a few moments. While Terán was outside, Sgt. Huacka enters another small house, where "Willy" was being held, and shoots him. When Terán comes back, Guevara stands up and refuses to be seated saying: "I will remain standing for this." Terán gets angry and tells Guevara to be seated again. Finally, Guevara tells him: "Know this now, you are killing a man." Terán fires his M2 Carbine and kills him. (Dept. of Defense Intelligence Information Report - 11/28/67).

Terán clearly used the low power M2 Carbine noted in the above report, which is a selective fire variant of the semi-automatic M1 Carbine, both of which use 15-shot or 30-shot magazines, not the much more powerful M1 Garand rifle which is markedly longer, much heavier, uses an 8 round clip, has far more penetration and is far louder, so is unsuited to executing someone in a hut. CodeBadger (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

El Che

Resolved

Well, in the introduction it's written "el Che", but the correct grammatical form in Spanish is "El Che". I ask you to correct this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.150.222 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Barbie & Agee

Resolved

@Redthoreau: Yes I removed these "based on my opinion", which is: the Barbie story is based on an uncorroborated story from a friend of the Nazi war criminal, which has not been repeated anywhere outside of one documentary film (which no doubt paid him for his story) - not the comprehensive 4-hour oscar-winning documentary Hotel Terminus, but instead one which basically no one has actually seen or heard of. Agee was not in the country at the time, so how would he know what he was talking about (and he wouldn't have lasted long in Cuba, as an American, if he failed to show proper respect to their hero). zzz (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Another opinion: I suggest moving these to the "Legacy" section to serve as examples of the tendency to mythologise the subject (rather than leaving them where they are and thereby actually contributing to this). zzz (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, unless there is some reason to take these claims seriously, they should be removed. zzz (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz, the potential Barbie connection to Che Guevara did not originate with that documentary. In fact, a Nov 26, 1984 edition of New York Magazine --> seen here notes how the U.S. Army made attempts to locate him for that purpose but decided against it for PR reasons. As for more recent articles, you have pieces in The Observer, 2007, The Mirror, 2015, and The Daily Mail, 2015 mentioning the connection spoken about in the documentary. There is also a chapter in the book, The Devil's Agent: Life, Times and Crimes of Nazi Klaus Barbie (2013) by Peter McFarren, which addresses the possible connection of Barbie to Guevara’s capture. As for Hotel Terminus, it came out in 1988, so of course it wouldn't feature material that arose more definitively many years later.

Secondly, to the idea that ex-agent Phillip Agee’s view isn’t credible, his quote is addressing the view of the CIA during the mid 60’s as they were trying to thwart Guevara, and Agee was a CIA agent from 1957-1968 (with postings in Washington, D.C., Ecuador, Uruguay and Mexico), i.e. during the exact time in question. His view is essentially that Guevara was a #1 concern of the CIA, the very organization he was a part of. If the fact that he later defected and left the CIA makes his testimony inadmissible, then that same path of logic would delegitimize any Cuban exile, or for that matter nearly any ‘whistleblower’ in history, who denounces their former employer or organization. The reason why his remarks are more relevant to the current section, is that section is related to his CIA-assisted capture in Bolivia. So it speaks to the issue of why the CIA would have been interested in helping capture him in the first place. A matter that Agee is uniquely qualified to speak on, as he was a CIA agent at the time in question.

Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The New York Magazine article is a review of a book that does not support any Barbie involvement. Then you have a review of the documentary film, and, 8 years later, two British tabloids talking about a new book where it states "He also boasted he helped the CIA hunt down Che Guevara in 1967" (ie, repeating the claim made in the film). So it appears from the sources you mention that the Barbie claim did indeed originate with the film, and has not been taken seriously. zzz (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to state in the article "It has been claimed that Klaus Barbie claimed to have been involved in the capture of Guevara." Then that would be accurate. However, since the source is a largely ignored documentary film, and a couple of UK tabloids, I would suggest not bothering to mention it. zzz (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz, I assume from the lack of mention about Agee, that you believe that matter is resolved? As for Barbie, currently the article reads = “The 2007 documentary My Enemy's Enemy, directed by Kevin Macdonald, alleges that Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, a.k.a. "The Butcher of Lyon", advised and possibly helped the CIA orchestrate Guevara's eventual capture.” How would that be any different from what you are proposing i.e. 'claimed'?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken about Agee's length of service in the CIA. Re Barbie, the wording is ok I guess. My main objection is that this information is WP:UNDUE, for the reasons stated above. The review of the documentary film, which as I mentioned few have watched or heard of, is only a reliable source for the fact that the film "claimed" that Barbie's friend claimed that Barbie had made this claim. The other sources are both WP:tabloids. zzz (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Barbie, User:Signedzzz, do you have a suggestion of how you would recommend retaining the information but lessening its prominence? Chronologically, it seems to me like its current location is the most relevant (not sure how it would be tied to ‘Legacy’ as you suggested earlier).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau, I would be inclined to relegate it to a footnote. Or you could lose the words "directed by Kevin Macdonald," and "a.k.a. "The Butcher of Lyon",". zzz (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz, I implemented the changes you suggested.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy as a hero

I found a better reference (Reuters) than People's World and inserted it into the "Legacy" section. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Che's Ancestry? (Spanish/Basque/Irish)

I haven't actually calculated what percentage Irish descent Ernesto Che Guevara had, by assume it will by something like 1/300th. If we are going to keep the Irish descent stuff, make sure it doesn't sound like his dad arrived from a boat from Ireland.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As editors we don’t conduct blood quantum tests to determine people’s ancestry. We simply echo the published sources. Those sources also show that Guevara’s father viewed himself as Irish, and that when Che visited Ireland he wrote to his father telling him "I am in this green Ireland of your ancestors", while also mentioning to artist Jim Fitzpatrick that his grandmother was Irish and that his great-grandmother, Isabel, was from Galway, with other family being from Cork. So it’s clear that Che viewed his father’s side of the family (ostensibly half of his background) as being tied to Ireland. Far more than 1/300th.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Find me a sourced Irish surname in Ernesto Guevara's family tree besides Lynch and I will drop it. So far, all I see are Spanish surnames all the way back to the 18th century. Argentines like to play up northern european ancestry due to the prestige it brings in their home countries, particularly the "anglo" side. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

What family tree are you looking at? And again, you are applying your own WP:OR by hypothesizing that Guevara’s family were exaggerating their "Anglo-ness". If you don’t have a published source for that it is an interesting theory, but irrelevant. What the sources show is that Che viewed his father’s side of the family as being tied to Ireland through multiple ancestors (not greatx4), as did his father, who saw his son as having the "blood of Irish rebels" in him.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:RedthoreauI am looking at all the Spanish language sources available which are included in Spanish wikipedia and are freely available. Basques are Spaniards so if we are going to mention his Basque ancestry, we can mention his Galician, Cantabrian, Andalusian ancestry as well. Trust me I have the sources for it. There are dozens. Do you want to go down that route?Asilah1981 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The story of blood of Irish rebels is lovely. He told it while visiting Ireland. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a story to tell children. I don't know where you get what "Che viewed". He could view himself as Chinese for all we care. He descends from Patrick Lynch, an Irishman who emigrated to Argentina and married a woman with a Spanish surname (Pastor) in the 18th century!!!. That's as far as his Irish ancestry goes. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981, A long-time WP:Consensus has been established that he be referred to as having Basque and Irish ancestry (based on sources) and that information has been included for years with no issue. You don’t get to unilaterally remove that without any sources based on your own OR from a family tree you haven’t even cited. You have not included a single source in any of your edits, just your own opinion and cite one of his Irish ancestors (greatx4) while ignoring all of the others. I won’t revert you for now with regards to 3RR, but hope someone else will, as you are making disputed changes without any TP agreement or validation. As for Basque, some Basque people view themselves as Spanish, some do not. Again, that is not for you to decide and then edit accordingly based on your own generalization or theory. We're here to echo the sources. If they call him part-Irish, then we do, regardless of your own psychoanalysis on the motivations for why he wanted to be more 'Anglo'.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A consensus with who?? Between you and yourself? Here is another source detailing his ancestry. His great great grandfather Patricio Julían Lynch y Roo (note Roo is a Spanish surname) was one quarter Irish. On his mother's side the origin is from Cantabria, Juan Manuel de la Serna y Quintana (born in Cantabrian town of Ontón, who married a woman called Catalina Loaces y Arandia. What kind of argument is that btw? I think you misunderstand the concept of consens. This article discussing his ancestry, which is probably the only serious source used so far on this article barely mentions Irish background since it is so minor.

https://books.google.de/books?id=vjpqAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&lpg=PT6&dq=che+cantabria+guevara&source=bl&ots=Eg6519xf5E&sig=oe0Oo0Si1on94g290Qb8nhBPLzE&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiktuDvi5vNAhVlLZoKHQd9AFcQ6AEIazAO#v=onepage&q=che%20cantabria%20guevara&f=false

Asilah1981 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The book you just linked appears to be "self-published", thus it is not an acceptable WP:Reliable source by Wiki standards. Plus, there is nothing available to view at the link anyway. So again, you haven't provided a single reliable source or corroboration for any of your edits, other than your own theories on what makes sense, and how you think his family exaggerated, and apparently speak for millions of Basque people that they are Spanish. Provide reliable accessible sources and show how they devalidate those which disagree, or your edits will just continue to be reverted.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau Look I don't have much time so may have to pick this up later and provide more sources. For now I will explain a bit more thoroughly, perhaps other wikipedians can give their opinion. Firstly, the Basque country, specifically Alava where the Guevara name is from is VERY MUCH in Spain, regardless of the conflicting identities existing in Spain - a country which is not ethnic based but politically based. In every region of Spain you have individuals who want their region to be independent or feel strongly about their local identity that is besides the point. Spain is Spain, a complex country where everyone is Spanish regardless of local identity. The main point is that Ernesto Che Guevara is of overwhelmingly Spanish origin with ONE ancestor 6 generations prior who is of Irish origin. All his other surnames are Spanish, be they Galician, Basque, Cantabrian, Castilian, Andalusian or whatever. I can provide you with the sources and I will add them in for each of these regions of Spain if you like. The reader will think "who cares where that his great grandfather was born in this part or that part of Spain, but that is what is going to end up happening. Saying he is an "Argentine of Basque and Irish descent" is just wrong and dozens of valid sources support this. Also, all Spanish sources claim that Che Guevara thought that he was the descendant of the Viceroy of Peru but that he was mistaken, the surname he thought was related to this individual was actually his great grandfather from Cantabria (a small region in northern Spain). Here (just randomly taken - first link I found on a basque website) are Che Guevara's immediate ancestors. http://www.euskalnet.net/laviana/gen_bascas/guevaraelche.html Asilah1981 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981, your current reverts are also against Wiki policy, as the old sources still remain which contradict the new information you have included. Which is why Wiki policy doesn’t allow someone to just swoop in and start writing their own unsourced material like the article was their personal blog. One of those current sources is the 2007 book, Young Che: Memories of Che Guevara by His Father, by Che’s father, published by Random House, and in the very first page when you open the cover, it says on top "The father of Che Guevara, Ernesto Guevara Lynch was born in Argentina in 1900 of Irish and Basque origin." So unless you have a source that can refute this, your edit can’t stand as it currently is. If you want to make the case that it should read he is of Irish, Basque, AND Spanish descent then I am sure that is also accurate and can be sourced based on his mother. But you don’t get to just erase the cited info from his father based on your own theory that his Irishness isn’t enough for your tastes, or Basque aren’t a distinct ethnic group.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau This is getting slightly infuriating. Of course he has Basque and Irish descent. Most if not all Spaniards/Spanish descendants have Basque ancestry somewhere down the line! And yes he also has one Irish ancestor? Am I denying that? I just provided you with a source with his entire family tree? Do you simply not want to accept it? Ernesto Guevara de la Serna: Son of Ernesto Guevara Linch and Celia Llosa de la Serna. His Father Ernesto Guevara Linch son of Roberto Guevara Castro and Ana Isabel Lynch Ortiz. His Granfather Roberto Guevara Castro son of Juan Antonio Peralta and Encarnación Castro Peralta. Encarnación was daughter of María Luisa Fermina Peralta and Guillermo Castro and Grandaughter of Luis María Peralta Valenzuela and María Loreto Alviso. As for the Guevara family, I'm not going to go generation by generation it is Criollo family from the very beginning of Spanish colonization of the America's, arriving in the 16th century from his home town of Vitoria. On his mother's side, as I said the origin is in Cantabria descendants of Juan Manuel de la Serna y de la Quintana born in the town of Ontón on the 16th of June 1765 Ontón. He married Paula Catalina Rafaela de Loaces, having a son Martín who married Rafaela de Fonredona Chaves. They had a son called Juan Martín who married Eloísa de Ugalde Torres, who had a another son also Juan Martín, marrying Eldemira de la Lloza Lacroze who were the parents of the Che's mother. I hope this is enough?!?! Asilah1981 (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And finally, you cannot say someone has basque AND spanish descent, its like saying Italian and Sicilian descent or American and Texan descent, or even American and Afro-American descent. They are not mutually exclusive. This is all the more evident when the basque surname originates from a Spanish conquistador. 15:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Asilah1981, what is infuriating is your refusal to follow Wiki guidelines and protocol. As you say, “of course he was Basque and Irish descent”, exactly, and we have reliable quoted sources saying as much, so that is exactly why it is included! As for your family tree, you have yet to provide an accessible source for that, and even if you did, it would need to explicitly state their background. What you are doing is looking at surnames and using your own WP:OR to determine that these individuals are wholly Spanish. However, in the case of Guevara (from the Basque "Gebara") and Lynch (Irish) you completely ignore that CITED lineage. And again, it is not up to you to decide that all Basque people are Spanish by default, when many Basque people dispute this. A more correct analogy would be that an individual can be English and Irish (from Northern Ireland) based on their parents, despite both of them being in the UK. As for my updates, I have (1) kept your inclusion of “Spanish” and even kept it listed first (though a reference should be included), (2) Restored the Basque and Irish descent info which you do not dispute, and updated the utilized ref, (3) Restored some of the internal wikis which you deleted, and (4) Kept the Patrick Lynch info in the ref where it already was, as there is no need to list it in the text imo, per WP:UNDUE.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau, Ok I appreciate you trying to reach a consensus solution. But I have provided you multiple sources, if the problem is that they are in Spanish and you don't understand them, let me know. But it is normal that most in depth sources will be in this language. Regarding the Basque issue, I just want to make a specific point: if you look at the Spanish article Spanish People, their definition includes the Basques. No definition of Spaniards excludes the Basques (in the way that definitions of (ethnic) Turks excludes Kurds). Frankly there is no such thing as an "ethnic Spaniard" when understood within the Iberian peninsula. Spanish is not an ethnicity like the Turks, it is a nationality. What makes sense is to say "Spanish (of basque, cantabrian among other origins) and Irish, through his ancestor Patrick Lynch. Ernesto Guevara's ancestor who came from Spain (Alava) was a Spanish-speaking Spanish citizen involved in the Spanish conquest and settlement of the Americas. Yes he was from the Basque region of Spain and maybe he also spoke Basque. Other of his ancestors were from the Cantabrian region of Spain, or Galician region of Spain and probably a long etc... Anyways, at least now the sentence is better than before, so I'll leave it at that. On another note, I would include the term "criollo" since that is what best describes his origin.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Asilah1981, I am glad you recognize I am trying to reach consensus with you, and not trying to WP:OWN the article. My sole concern is that the information reflects the reliable published sources. I can read Spanish, but since this is the English language article, I try to only utilize English sources so that readers can verify the information themselves and delve deeper into the issue (by clicking on the refs) should they desire. For instance, this --> link that you included as a reference seems to contain thorough credible information (though the source itself likely doesn’t meet Wiki standards); however, setting that aside, it would be more helpful for readers of this article if it were in English or translated. As for Cantabrian or any of the other Autonomous communities of Spain I would be fine with including them, if reliable published sources were located that referred to Che as also possessing those heritages (in the way it does for Basque and Irish). As for Criollo people, that would again also be fine, if again, reliable published sources were located that referred to Che in that way. My only benchmark is echoing the sources, and I have nothing to gain from the inclusion or exclusion from any ethnicity.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the sources in the article state that Che was Basque and Irish, so the article states he was Basque and Irish. The sources Asilah brings up say, "such and such and such" were his ancestors. Listing dozens of relatives is trivia and does not go into the article. And while one can be "correct" in identifying the regions of Spain these names come from, that is OR and Synthesis to include them here. Further, it is not for you to decide whether Basque is an ethnicity or just a subset of Spanish. Che identified himself as paternally of Irish and Basque descent and the sources confirm that. Also, you are violating Good Faith and acting uncivil towards Redthoreau by implying the consensus referred to is between him/herself. The information should be left as it was before the edit conflict. JesseRafe (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe please stop tracking my edits and looking to pick fights with me on other articles, I really hate it when people do that. I am not deciding on whether Basque is an ethnicity. It is. Spanish is a nationality, like American. I am not identifying regions of Spain from where surnames come from, I am using sources which specifically list his ancestors, on what date and in which part of Spain they were born. So your OR and Synthesis arguments are off the mark to say the least. If you speak any Spanish at all, I invite you to read them. What Guevara identified himself with is pretty much irrelevant to what he was. He also identified himself as descending from the viceroy of Peru, and all sources deny that this was true. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out that SOME of the refs relate to the origins of the surname, rather than 'Che's' origins. These should probably be in 'external links', if used at all. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete, the only actual European-born individuals who can be traced as his ancestors I have found in sources are an immigrant born in Cantabria and Patrick Lynch. However, Che himself has often mentioned his Basque ancestry in his own writings (again on the basis of his surname Guevara), so as you said yourself, his own self-perception trumps anything else. There is no real change we can make here and except maybe include the word "criollo" before Spanish. Criollo denotes pre-independence Spaniard. In some Latin American countries it implies absence or near-absence of Amerindian admixture whereas in others it denotes the exact opposite. Its a little complicated. Asilah1981 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing the ancestry, merely pointing out that sources about the name in general, don't have any bearing on Che in particular, they are 'further reading' or 'external link' material, if useful at all.Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Che, che, che

Resolved

Is really indispensable to repeat Che three times only in the first sentence? It should be either only «Ernesto "Che" Guevara was [...]» or «Ernesto Guevara, commonly known as El Che or simply Che, was [...]». I think that my version is better than Redthoreau 's one. --Almicione (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Almicione, the former wording bolded all 3 terms because they all redirected to this article, however recently the entry for ‘Che’ solely was un-redirected, so yes, only the 2 mentions that redirect would now be necessary.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

His legal name

Do we have better sourcing on what his name was? His birth certificate is very difficult to read, but people claim it says "Ernesto Rafael Guevara". Spanish naming customs would produce "Ernesto Guevara de la Serna". Has Lynch ever seriously been included in his name? PatGallacher (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Che Guevara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=39170&sctn=1
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130204225416/http://miamiherald.typepad.com/cuban_colada/2008/07/che-guevara-spe.html to http://miamiherald.typepad.com/cuban_colada/2008/07/che-guevara-spe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128172204/http://sadena.com/Books-Texts/Che%20Guevara%20-%20Man%20and%20Socialism%20in%20Cuba.pdf to http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Che%20Guevara%20-%20Man%20and%20Socialism%20in%20Cuba.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207082403/http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cheremains111897.html to http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cheremains111897.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20110425121227/http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html to http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Execution / Murder?

This article repeatedly refers to Che's death as an execution. That is incorrect . An execution, meaning killing someone, would be referring to the execution of a sentence of a court of law. There was never any trial , nor semblance of trial. No court order was being executed when Guevara was shot. Another word needs to be found. Murder perhaps. Hmcst1 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked into this a little further, The Guardian Style Guide (FWIW) gives Execution as "the carrying out of a death sentence by lawful authority, so a terrorist, for example, does not “execute” someone" http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e . In the absence of any replies I'm going to go ahead and change execution to a less loaded word. The obvious word is kill , killing, killed. Hmcst1 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

did you do this? i see some places where the word "execution" is not used, when it could have been. but there are still many instances of the word "execution." it looks like you only changed the word in the one sub-heading. i agree with you that "execution" is not the best/most accurate word to use, and that it should be replaced in all instances where it's currently used for Guevara's death.Colbey84 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster states that an execution is "a putting to death, especially as a legal penalty", so it does not preclude outright murder. However, in Che Guevara's situation, there is little doubt that his death was an execution in the truest sense of the word: he was killed due to the order of a political authority. That does NOT automatically assume legitimacy of an act of killing, but there is no reason to challenge the use of the term "execution" in this article, as it meets the accepted definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:381:100:4F10:A55B:9AC1:30E2:15E6 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the "ballistic trauma" as the cause of death as well. I would think "assassination by firearm" is the most apt cause of death. Executions are legal affairs. This was not. There's one instance of "assassination" in scare quotes. I'm not sure why, since it appears to perfectly fit the definition: "Assassination is the murder of a prominent person, often a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment." Murder is an illegal killing. They were a prominent political figure. I may not agree with Che on a lot of things, but it seems odd to deny that he was assassinated. Even if people think it might have quasi-legal cover, then it would still be a "summary execution," something he did to others, himself, as already noted in the article. Not being clear that it was without due process is rather important given Che's own behavior. 2602:CF:E01F:7E00:D8E9:77D6:9D8E:3B55 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

2601 / 2602, I have added (via summary execution) to the infobox, in an attempt to address your concern. Let me know if you feel it properly solves the matter. Thanks.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

assassination implies it was a surprise attack by a small number of people. he was not killed in a surprise attack by a small number of people. A77B (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

execution does not necessarily mean he was killed by sentence of court of law. it accurately represents the method by which he was killed. that's why there's a phrase "execution-style". it provides context of how he was killed: "perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape". the word "execution" describes this perfectly. execution is a sub-set of "killing". i see no point in using a broader term when a more definitive term is appropriate. "murder" implies it was an illegal killing. i dont think you can make the claim that it's illegal killing a mass murderer during a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A77B (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Guatemalan coup

The information about the Guatemalan coup, as currently written, does not reflect scholarly sources on the subject. It still seems to be based on the now-outdated narrative that the shipment of Czech weapons triggered the coup, and that the US role was minimal after the invasion had begun. Our page on the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which is an FA, reflects this better. When I have the time, I intend to rewrite this subsection a little, unless objections are raised here. Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

In the Early Life section, please remove the words “his wife”. Cher was born to his mother, not his father’s wife. This sexist language must be challenged. 92.40.248.167 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Although calling it sexist is a bit extreme. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Male feminist category?

Did Che Guevara literally self-identify as a feminist or is his inclusion in the "list of male feminists" simply based on his politics being pro women's rights? Legitimately curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.92.254 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Although he spoke of liberating both men and women from capitalism, imperialism etc, I’m not aware of Guevara specifically referring to himself as a “feminist” in any documented context. So that inclusion seems to be an editor’s interpretation of his views and I thus removed it (along with other category bloat).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why was his nickname Che?

Alberto Guevara was called Che because he was Argentine. People from Latin America call Argentines Che or Ches because Argentines use that term routinely.Limena1962 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See Che (interjection) for an explanation. Guevara earned his nickname from his frequent use of the expression, which to his Cuban comrades in the Cuban Revolution was a curious feature of his idiolect.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

Change "Despite his polarized status, a high-contrast monochrome graphic of Che's face, created by Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick, became ...". should be changed to "Despite his polarized status, a high-contrast monochrome graphic of Che's face, created by Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick from a photograph taken by Cuban photographer Alberto Korda, became ..." Limena1962 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Feel free to reopen this request if you can provide a source stating that Korda took the photograph. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The photograph Guerrillero Heroico was definitely taken by Alberto Korda as can be seen on both of these Wikipedia articles. Here is a Reuters article if you need a source. --NorTexPlex (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

It should be noted that many in the expatriate community regard Che as a mass murderer. And his resurgence as a cult figure is a relatively new phenomenon, particularly in the U.S.. Endorsing Che is liable to alienate and offend people sensitive by relation to any of the victims of the 10,000+ reprisal killings which took place after the Cuban revolution, as well as refugees from Latin America who've fled totalitarian leftist countries such as Venezuela. One citation among many documenting a dissent from the left-wing popular view of Che as a "youthful symbol of rebellion" would be the Economist Yakkowackodot (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yakkowackodot, the articles itself already makes note of this in the legacy section and states: In contrast, Guevara remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile and Cuban-American community of the United States, who view him with animosity as "the butcher of La Cabaña".[274]  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

Guevara was a mass-murderer who wrote to his family in Argentina that he enjoyed killing. SophieMaele (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources to support your suggested edits. Iffy★Chat -- 14:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

any "in the Order of the" in regards to honours should be "of the Order of the"

you are of the Order not in the Order when you use your honourific such as companion, knight, Grand Cross 2605:E000:9149:A600:AD5C:6551:85D8:948D (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done — Newslinger talk 04:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

the two statements that say he was a "Knight Grand Cross in the order of" should be "knight Grand Cross of the order" You are a knight of the order not in the order.This general rule can be shown by the mere hits of one phrase over the other. One may sound "grammatically" correct but that is not proper language of the situation. 2605:E000:9149:A600:A08F:FA9:D815:B97 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done — Newslinger talk 04:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The birthday is incorrect

Che was born on May 14, and his birth certificate was doctored to save his parents from scandal. See the first chapter of Jon Lee Anderson's (New Yorker, lived five years in Cuba writing the book) 1997 biography, excerpted at the NYTimes: http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/first/a/anderson-guevara.html

2606:A000:1120:18CC:2D8D:30EA:49A4:42BC (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)shane

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Che was born on May 14, and his birth certificate was doctored to save his parents from scandal. See the first chapter of Jon Lee Anderson's (New Yorker, lived five years in Cuba writing the book) 1997 biography, excerpted at the NYTimes: http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/first/a/anderson-guevara.html ShaneRyan123 (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Every other source says June 14, does one anecdote supersede that? Would need discussion. This has been discussed before, see the talk archives (for example, Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_5#Alleged_Uncertainty_about_Che's_Birthdate). Fish+Karate 09:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

The section in the first paragraph ", but he was a murderer of Cuban peaceful opponents, a terrorist idealized by communist propaganda and his famous photo." has been clearly hastily added without a source. It's been placed after a full stop and a citation as if it was a continuation of the previous sentence. Not only this but it shows writer bias and is blatantly not written from a neutral position in the slightest. It should be regarded as vandalism.

You're quite correct. I have removed it. Thank you for picking this up. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

Che Guevara was interviewed by Herbert Matthews in 1959. In this interview he states he has no connections to communism and even goes as far as to say that the U.S. government began the rumor. Ldague (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

Mario Teran was not alcoholic 212.219.189.18 (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This characterization of Teran was changed to "half drunken" in this 2009 edit; it was then changed to "alcoholic" in 2013 in this edit. Perhaps someone who has access to the source being used could clarify -- Carlson288, are you there? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done The source uses the words "half-drunken" so the wording has been adjusted and “alcoholic” removed.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2019

Turkey needs to be capitalized in the summary at the start of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.78.3.135 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction: United Fruit Became Chiquita

United Fruit Company became Chiquita Brands International, not Dole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.191.70.92 (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done That part has been removed.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

CHANGE THIS SENTENCE: Guevara, who was practically the architect of the Soviet–Cuban relationship,[169] then played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

TO: Guevara, who was practically the architect of the Soviet–Cuban relationship,[169] then played a key role in bringing Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to Cuba in response to the American deployment of nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy, which precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

RATIONALE: Historically Accurate and avoids the misconception that Guevara and the Soviets were the provocateurs of the crisis. Hummelgau (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The change is the addition of "in response to American deployment of nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy". This would be something for which a reliable source would be handy. So they've done 50% of what you asked for. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some sources for consideration newsmedia source. I've repeatedly said I don't like 'em and I don't, but it's well-referenced in and of itself, a timeline drafted by an anti-nuclear advocacy agency, an academic source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Those sorts of arguments are best for the article on the Cuban Missile Crisis, not for rehashing in the lead of this one, in my view. However, the word "precipitated" could be changed to "preceded" to be more neutral. I have done so.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Chei?

Why is this article saying that "Che" should be pronounced "Chei" in English? That is ridiculous, why can't everybody stick to the real pronunciation? It is like saying that New York should be pronounced Nehu Shork in Spanish... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer: I have no idea why. It sounds ridiculous to me too. But it is the pronunciation described by the Collins English Dictionary, which is used as a source in the article. --MarioGom (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the source. But it is completely insensible... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"After a military doctor amputated his hands..."

This is POV bullshit. An amputation is surgery, which is to say the person is necessarily alive. This was a dismemberment. Fix it, Superjerks. 174.115.100.93 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done The wording has been adjusted.  Redthoreau -- (talk) -- (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about "radicalized"

As if his reaction was something wrong or radical, as in terrorism. We won't say Nelson Mandala was "radicalized" by the Apartheid system for example. 2100s (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Also that sentence is backed only by a primary source. It would make sense to add other biographical sources and reword, if applicable. --MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Radicalized" isn't necessarily pejorative, as 'radical' can have positive or neutral connotations as well.  Redthoreau 14:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

For instance, "radical" can be defined as "favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions." In this instance it is not being used as a critique, but rather an accompanying term to signify that his ideology at this time had become crystallized and in its post-Arbenz state, was indeed 'radical', as Guevara himself never shied away from acknowledging the drastic nature of the transformational Marxist world revolution which he believed was necessary.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

Change all dates of birth from June 14 to May 14. Source: ANDERSON, J. L. (1997). Che Guevara: a revolutionary life. p. 3 Finleft (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article already notes the discrepetency between this source and the date on the birth certificate. RudolfRed (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Disputed lead addition

GrammarDamner—per the WP:BRD “Bold, revert, discuss cycle”, (where the burden is on you to garner talk page WP:Consensus for your reverted desired additions) and show how they don’t violate Wiki guidelines—I figured I would address your recent attempts to add --> this sentence to the lead, stating that Guevara’s critics “note that he murdered political opponents, eliminated the free press, and put homosexuals in forced labor camps.” I have reverted this addition for several reasons.

[1] The sources you are relying on for these claims both fail the WP:Reliable criteria, since they are unreferenced online essays by non-experts on the subject. One is an online editorial by Johann Hari (known for his work on mental health and substance abuse) and the other is a clickbait list on Fox News by Maxim Lott (the creator of ElectionBettingOdds.com). Neither of these men are authoritative voices on the subject.

[2] The part of the sentence regarding putting “homosexuals in forced labor camps”, is not found in the 3 peer-reviewed definitive biographies of Guevara by Anderson, Castaneda, or Taibo II – and is thus a WP:Fringe viewpoint, which violates the WP:VERIFY criteria outlining how “exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources.” Clearly, Hari and Lott are not this. Moreover, since this claim is not included in any mainstream biography of Guevara, including it in the lead of the article would not only be WP:Undue, but also go against the purpose of the lead – which is to summarize the article as whole. Now the reason this issue is not listed in the article is because it’s simply not accurate, since the UMAP aka Military Units to Aid Production camps being used for the claim began in late 1965 after Guevara left Cuba and relinquished all of his governmental posts—i.e. he had nothing to do with their establishment. The primary writer to repeatedly make this claim is the polemical Humberto Fontova, however he would not be a reliable source per WP:VERIFY for an neutral encyclopedia article, see the past TP discussion --> Using Humberto Fontova.

[3] The sentence goes against WP:NPOV because it presents the content in Wikipedia’s voice by saying that they “note” these issues, as if they were an undisputed fact. There is only one documented case of Guevara executing someone personally i.e. Eutímio Guerra, and biographers include details of several other examples of men shot on Guevara’s orders for ‘crimes’ during the revolutionary war such as desertion, stealing rations, raping a peasant, being an informer etc – it’s also debatable whether this constitutes “murder” under usual wartime standards. Furthermore, Anderson notes how 55 executions took place at La Cabana where Guevara had the final appellate say on whether to suspend or lessen the death sentences handed down by the 3 person revolutionary tribunals, but again that would be analogous to proclaiming a U.S. Governor who refused to commute death sentences as a “murderer”, which no Wikipedia entry would do.

Now if you believe a sentence about Guevara’s critics is needed in the lead, that could be possible, but the sources for that should be Che’s biographers, not random ideological foes writing what are essentially news site editorials.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources. Fox News, in particular, has been discussed at length and is a reliable source. These are not fringe theories, and their addition does not violate NPOV. Rather, their removal violates NPOV and, more specifically, BALANCE. The first sentence in that paragraph even begins with "Guevara remains both a revered and reviled historical figure..." but then only goes on to mention the "revered" and none of the "reviled". Does that make any sense? I'm not trying to remove anything about what Guevara accomplished as a leader or an enduring world icon. Please self revert to avoid starting an edit war. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 20:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fox News as a news site of course may be a reliable source for certain content, but Maxim Lott is not for the extraordinary claims he is making / repeating, see WP:Verify … Especially since they contradict all of the primary biographers on the subject. Moreover, the claim of Guevara placing homosexuals in labor camps is demonstrably untrue, which is why it is not included in the article or any of his main biographies. The UMAP system was established after Guevara left Cuba and was no longer part of the Government. Now as I said, if you believe the “reviled” portion should be addressed and summarize what's already in the article, that is different, but the sources used need to meet the reliability criteria if they are making extraordinary claims. Lastly, I would add that it is not an "edit war" to require you to gain talk page WP:Consensus for your desired additions, that is literally how Wikipedia is set up to work.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If someone writes an article, and a RS publishes it, that means that it has gone through their peer review process. If Fox News is a RS, then we can include their publications. We can't just dismiss something from a RS just because it's extraordinary or we don't like that particular author. Anyway, I have found another source to add to this. GrammarDamner how are things? 21:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, to be clear, it’s not just the sources you used. That is only one problematic aspect of your edit. It’s also that the ‘camp’ claim contradicts the majority of reliable sources on the issue, and is therefore WP:Fringe. Meaning it’s not about googling to find someone else who repeats the same fringe claim, but showing that the claim is in the main biographies on the subject (hint: it’s not), because it’s not actually true. However, the talk page exists here for you to provide the additional sources and see if there is WP:Consensus from other editors on including your desired addition. i.e. the basis behind WP:BRD. My reverting is justified until you have this.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. Just because you don't like something does not make it a fringe theory. But since you refuse to get consensus for the bold removal of relevant and properly sourced material (you're the only one over the past several months who has felt that this removal was necessary), I will wait for other editors to weigh in here. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems clear that criticism should be presented in the lead since it is present throughout the article. I do not believe that the content should be removed entirely. However the WP:LEAD must summarise content within the article. "Sending homosexuals to labor camps" is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. --Hazhk (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Video links

The video links for this page doesn’t work unfortunately. Can someone fix that? Mcorimanya (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Formal education

Guevara has not de Bs.As. University as his “Alma Mater”, he wasn’t a doctor or he hasn’t a medical record degree, his profession is Nurse, as his profession certificate reads. Gohamfan (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what any source I pulled up suggests. Please cite something to back up your claim if you want any changes to be made. Bluedude588 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the false rumor exists amongst his critics that he did not graduate, his original medical diploma (showing that he in fact graduated) can be found on page 75 of Becoming Che: Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America, by Carlos 'Calica' Ferrer. Ferrer was a childhood friend of Che, and apparently when Guevara passed the last of his 12 exams in 1953, he gave him a copy to prove that he had finally passed (since Ferrer had been teasing him he would never do so).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Quote relevance?

"Guevara was like a father to me ... he educated me. He taught me to think. He taught me the most beautiful thing which is to be human." What's the point of this quote being highlighted in its own little box? You don't see sycophantic praise of right wing dictators being framed like that on wikipedia, hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.139.114 (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You sound like a right wing nut job. People like Che. Get over it. Bluedude588 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

IP 24, the quote is alongside a section of the article dealing with the nationwide literacy program Guevara oversaw, and the speaker of the quote fought with Guevara in both Cuba and Bolivia, making it a first-hand account of the impact that such literacy had on one of his contemporaries. The rest of your view is irrelevant as this talk page is WP:Notaforum.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Chei?

Resolved

Can we discuss again why would his nickname have an added sound at the end in English? I know Collins says it's Chei in English, but that is so intensely ridiculous... The Spanish Wikipedia does not promote calling Shakespeare "Yeikspier"... --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, how do you suggest the IPA should read instead, and can you locate a corroborating source we can include?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that that IPA be disregarded as reflecting only American deforming pronunciation. For sources, you can listen to any native mention of his name. Any documentary in Spanish will do. For modern people, I think that we don't change their names' pronunciation depending on where they are pronounced. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, I have removed the English IPA in an attempt to address your concern. Let me know if you feel that resolves the issue.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

Under the "Capture and Death" heading, change "...two battalions numbering 1,800 soldiers..." to "...two battalions numbering 180 soldiers..." (number should be decreased by 90%). Time Magazine (https://time.com/4970857/report-1967-death-che-guevara/) Ldsang (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Two companies are also a very different force from two battalions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Family history?

The first part of the early life section lists his father's surname as Lynch, but then links to his mother's ancestor Patrick Lynch? Does this suggest that Che Guevara's mother and father were closely related cousins? 109.79.116.207 (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Capture and Death

Much of this section lacks a neutral point of view. It is taken from a single account of someone with a bias from the Left. The piece appeared in the New Left magazine Ramparts titled, "In Cold Blood: The Execution of Che by the CIA". The article has no footnotes or proofs offered.Scottca075 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That part appears to have 12 different sources, which seems plenty for a subsection. I'm very confused by what you mean with "a single account with a bias from the Left". Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is the left wing bias exactly ? Did Che Guevara die of old age ? Was he judged in a court of law ? Or was he indeed tortured and murdered by the CIA ? Aesma (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing of terminology in lead

As per WP:BRD I made the following this amendment. Reason for this is the current terminology suggests that the only people who criticise Che are right wingers. In my opinion it undermines the neutrality of the article to confine criticism and/or opposition to Che (and his legacy) to one side of the political spectrum. The following is the current terminology:
"Guevara has evolved into a quintessential icon of various leftist movements. In contrast, his ideological critics on the right accuse him of authoritarianism and sanctifying violence against his political opponents."
I recommend a change to something along the lines of:
"Guevara's legacy is a controversial one: to some it has evolved into a quintessential icon of some leftist movement; others highlight his authoritarianism, his sanctifying violence against his political opponents and his unsuccessful period as Cuban Finance Minister." Alssa1 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Hi, thanks for your input in your recent reversion, do you happen to have any thoughts on alternative terminology? Alssa1 (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Alssa1, I disagree for a myriad of reasons. [a] Your proposal ignores that his status as a leftist icon is because of the reasons stated in the earlier part of the sentence (perceived martyrdom etc), and randomly cuts the line into an incomplete sentence. [b] As Wikipedia it is our aim to write generally and represent the majority of the reliable sources on the matter. And the vast majority of those all say that Che’s status is often seen from the left or right perspective of an individual’s personal politics, i.e. that he is a polarizing figure often divided in a binary way down partisan lines. Hundreds of sources could be located attesting to this. [c] The wording is saying that in contrast, those on the right believe the opposite, not that there universally aren’t critics of Guevara who fall outside of the right. But every minor obscure facet of the issue is not noteworthy in a brief encyclopedia entry. [d] This wording came about after an editor attempted to include several far-right editorials about Guevara, and it is an attempt to include that dimension of the debate. [e] Your wording declaratively calls his Finance Minister stint “unsuccessful”, and states explicitly that he was authoritarian (both in wikis voice), which are not our call to make as editors. [f] However, it appears that another editor has already reverted your addition, stating “it makes it worse, not better”.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll answer each criticism along the lines you've set out.

[a] I accept wholeheartedly my sentence structure may not have been the most 'successful' and will work to improve it. But in regards to 'ignoring reasons', I think that's not legitimate; I don't think we need to repeatedly state in the lead why people like Che, and I don't agree that my suggested text (though I accept structural criticisms of it) undermines anything.
[b] I am yet to see any reliable sources in the article that supports your claim of criticism deriving and individual's personal politics. Furthermore your claim is undermined by the statements in the existing "Che Guevara legacy" section of this page as well as the "Legacy of Che Guevara" dedicated page itself. You simply cannot say that that it's "often divided in a binary way down partisan lines".
[c] The terminology makes suggestions beyond what it says 'on paper', we don't so crudely define criticism to political/historical figures based upon the politics of the individual making those criticisms, when the nature of those criticisms are not fringe theories. To give an example, much of the criticism of Nelson Mandela comes from the political right both in South Africa and further afield. However we don't make the crude statement about that criticism being "often divided in a binary way down partisan lines" there or anywhere else. So your statement is not only incorrect, but also creates a weird 'special standard' in the case of Che, it doesn't make sense.
[d] I cannot comment on previous edits that I am not responsible for.
[e] My statement regarding his time as Finance Minister is a paraphrase from a reliable source found lower down on the page itself (See section Economic vision and the "New Man"). To quote what's written there already "Whatever the merits or demerits of Guevara's economic principles, his programs were unsuccessful...". If the programs you implement as a minister are widely deemed to be unsuccessful by reliable sources, I don't think it's out of order or controversial for me to say that his stint was unsuccessful.
[f] I am aware that another editor wasn't in favour of the change, however without a deeper explanation of what the problem actually is, it doesn't serve anyone. Alssa1 (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alssa1. That line lacks in neutrality. You really think political moderates and moderate liberals aren’t critical of Che Guevara as well?Bjoh249 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying language in the introduction

In the first paragraph of the introduction, it should say "naturalised" (or naturalized) rather nationalised. To naturalize is to adopt a nationality not held at birth, while to nationalise means to cede control of something to the nation.

In the final paragraph of the introduction, the word 'sanctify' is incorrect. To sanctify means to make holy or sacred. I think the author might have meant 'sanction', but that still is a bit unclear. So I suggest 'accused of promoting authoritarianism and endorsing violence'. Charlesthelee (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I realize I should have made this an edit request - apologies! Charlesthelee (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Luis Peralta was never the Mayor of Oakland

Resolved

Inaccurate text "Through his father, he was a descendant of Luis María Peralta, an early 19th century Mayor of San Jose, California"

Spanish/Mexican Sargent Luis Peralta was the grantee of Rancho San Antonio in 1820 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_San_Antonio_(Peralta). This included later Oakland, California. He never lived in the area and died in 1851 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Mar%C3%ADa_Peralta The first mayor of Oakland was attorney and master scammer Horace Carpentier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Carpentier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cv4wheeler (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cv4wheeler, the wording has now been adjusted to omit the Mayor issue entirely.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Replace the photo in the "Capture and Death" section of the page with something more relative to the subject matter such as the famous photo of CIA agent Felix Rodriguez and Bolivian soldiers posing with Che Guevara moments before his execution in Bolivia on 9 October 1967. This photo can be found: https://external-preview.redd.it/tC37xpAaANa5FplwCdOH_uI5Sqhud3KPNHI-EzhUBFE.png?auto=webp&s=63b6ebdfdf66ada9c3d0bb4d4bc40efb40ad77c3 137.229.212.13 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Its may be a copyright violation per c:COM:Copyright rules Run n Fly (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I do not believe this photo to be currently copyrighted as it was taken as operational intelligence by the Bolivian army. No record of copyright status has been uncovered in my search. If anything, allegations of fraud and doctoring by the Bolivian military has been found, but not owner rights and use information. see https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-documentary-alleges-last-photo-of-che-is-fake-1126943 137.229.212.13 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC) (talk)

Lumumba was Congo's prime-minister

In the section on The Che's time in the African Congo, it is stated that "he helped supporters of the overthrown president Patrice Lumumba".

This is a mistake. Lumumba was actually the prime minister (even tough to some extent, while in office, he had more power than the actual president Joseph Kasa-Vubu).

Therefore, the passage should be changed to "he helped supporters of the overthrown prime minister Patrice Lumumba".

This fact is supported by several (if not every possible) sources. Here's just one from Britannica. Thanks :)

--Desmond R.N.N. (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. See Patrice Lumumba. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of the term "peasant army guide" to describe Eutimio Guerra

There is a tendency on anti-Guevara websites to describe Eutimio Guerra as a "peasant army guide" who was murdered by Guevara. In reality he was a pro-Castrist guerrilla, acting mainly as a guide, who was executed after working with the government forces, which the guerrillas classified as treason. The episode is known principally from Guevara's diaries here where he is described as acting as a guide for the rebels, and is mentioned in Luther's Critical Lives, which states his role with the rebels was mainly as a guide. I have amended the text to show this. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)