User talk:LordViD/archive2

Che Guevara

Hello LordViD. Having worked on the Che Guevara article since its inception, I am very appreciative of all of the work you have put into it today to bring it up to FAC-candidacy level. The only modification that you made that troubles me is how you merged the section labelled "The Intellectual and Artistic" into the section "Youth". I do not think that this merger works at all because the article has been written in chronological order throughout, and the chronology is disrupted by the references in the "Youth" section to how he returned to playing chess in Cuba and the role his photographs played in the Bolivian guerrilla campaign. I do agree that the The Intellectual and Artistic" section as it existed prior to your merging it was a big problem for the article -- just last night I spent many minutes staring at it and wondering what could be done to either re-work or remove it because it seemed to me to be the weakest part of the article. Even if we were to add more content to it, which would not be too difficult, I think that it was, and would continue to be, out of place at the end of the article. The only possibility that I have been able to come up with is to leave the information about his beginning to play chess and his taking up photography in the "Youth" section but remove from that section the references to his playing chess in Cuba and the photographs in Bolivia. Those topics could either be mentioned in the "Cuba" and "Capture and Execution" sections respectively, or converted into Content Notes.

I look forward to hearing your ideas about this ... Polaris999 03:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, completely right, since you are the one who has written the article, not I. I have read your idea and it seems like the best way to go; Let's leave the information about his beginning to play chess and his taking up photography in the "Youth" section, add the reference about him playing chess in Cuba and the pictures in Bolivia. Thanks.LordViD 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now implemented your idea. Check it out and let me know what you think. LordViD 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your reply, LordVid. Will you do this, or shall I? (My preference is you, since you bring a fresh perspective to the article.)
    - BTW I have just noticed a problem with a source concerning the "dispute" over CG's birthdate. The spelling looked wrong to me, so I corrected it, but then decided to take a look at where the link leads ... and was surprised to discover that it leads to an older version of our very own wiki CG article! I don't think that we can cite ourselves, so this needs to be changed ASAP. We already have a good link to a source for that, probably in the Content Notes (as I recall). Anyway, I can re-do the source note #3 to link to an acceptable source and will get to work on that just as soon as I finish a source note that I am now preparing for the Sartre comment in the Legacy section... Polaris999 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - LordVid, I was trying to post my answer to you just as you were writing to me [so I got "edit conflict" message several times] to say that you had taken care of the merged sections. Thank you!! I will go back to the CG page now to see your new version ... Polaris999 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Masterful! You definitely found the perfect place to insert that sentence re the photos. And I guess that the matter of the chess games in Cuba has been relegated to the source note? Seems fine to me. Again, many thanks.
        Meanwhile, I have just discovered another matter that requires our prompt attention: some of the source notes are out of order (off by one). This problem affects at least all source notes after number [40] -- I haven't yet tried to trace it back to see how far it goes or what has caused this malfunction. I will start working on that as soon as I finish adding the two source notes I have "in the pipeline" right now. Polaris999 06:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I just found the info re chess at the end of the Cuba section. I moved it up a few paragraphs, please take a look and see how you like it in that location ... (It just didn't seem quite right to me to have it sandwiched between launching ballistic missiles and delivering a speech at the UN, but I may be wrong about this ...) Polaris999 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I actually thought the source given for the birthdate was lifted from that website, not the opposite. As for the chess comments, the place you put it in is perfect. I will also be looking into the source note malfunction. Thanks. LordViD 06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Glad we have found satisfactory "new homes" for chess and photos -- actually, I think that where we have them now is a notable improvement over the "stub" sub-section that previously housed them.
        Source Notes seems to be working fine now. I am going through them one by one, just to make sure. At present, have reached [43] and it is all right, so perhaps what I experienced was just a transitory problem. Maybe two people were editing at about the same time and this caused some perturbation ... Polaris999 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the source note seem to be working fine with me also. That's most of the problems fixed right? The external links still need to be shortened and trimmed though. LordViD 06:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, the external links section seems to be the most important remaining task. To start, would you agree that we could remove links to websites that are already included in the Source Notes section? Polaris999 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I was actually going to ask you the same thing. Removing External links already in the source notes is a good idea. LordViD 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Very good -- I will take out the couple I am aware of right now. Incidentally, there are a few editors who like to add their favorite links to each possible reference and/or links sub-section of the CG article, apparently with the intention of increasing their exposure, and even though others of us try to remove duplicates, it isn't always possible for us to keep up with them ... Polaris999 07:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done many changes since last time, hopefully for the better. Look at them and tell me if you object to any;

I have split the lead section into paragraphs
I have shortened the external links. I removed some of them and changed some to source notes. I have also made one inline in the first sentence under the "Disappearance from Cuba" heading (the audio one)
I have reduced the size of the references and and the external links sections.

Finally, what do you say about adding Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg to the article. If so, where shall we place it? LordViD 13:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LordViD. I would very much like to see the TIME cover featuring CG restored to this article -- in fact, I uploaded it to Wiki specifically to use it in the "Cuba" section where it was until that section became so unruly that Jmabel split most of it off from the main article to create "Che Guevara's Involvement in the Cuban Revolution" and the TIME cover went with it.

After reading your comment (above), I brought it back in and placed it in a location that seems fairly good to me. However, I would suggest that we consider removing the photo at the top of the section ("After the battle of Santa Clara") because that photo was also copied to the "Involvement" article, so now we have two duplicated photos. From my point of view, the best solution would be to remove the "Battle" image from this main article and remove the TIME cover image from the "Involvement" article, thereby eliminating the redundancy. Then we can put the TIME cover image in this main article in the location where the "Battle" image was. What are your thoughts about this?

I also want to mention a couple of other points:

First, re the link

http://chehasta.narod.ru Guerrillero heroico – information, articles, pictures, and ebooks

In the past, we have had to remove this link because it has caused problems with loading the entire CG wiki article (page freezes), apparently by triggering some anti-virus alert. I haven't wanted to investigate this problem in depth for fear of having my system damaged. Maybe this URL is working all right now, but I thought you should know about this history.

Second, in the "Criticism" sub-section, there appears the following:

"They believe that Guevara murdered individuals on dubious grounds and ..."

This wording has bothered me ever since it first appeared on the page because it raises the question of whether anyone has ever been murdered on "non-dubious grounds". IMHO it definitely needs re-wording. Polaris999 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the pictures; I don't believe there is no need for removing any of the pictures. They all serve their purpose and it's not a problem if they are redundant with other articles. As for the link; this problem doesn't happen with me, though feel free to remove it if you wish. About the line; you are correct, a rewording is necessary, though you should do it since you know much more about the topic than I. :) LordViD 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, LordViD, and also for the very kind mentions on the FAC page!!

I am actually glad that you feel that way about the photos since my original intention was for both of them to be in the main CG article and, from my personal point of view, if "Involvement" duplicates them that is a side issue concerning the people who are working on that article, not me.

About the re-wording. Would you mind giving it a try? That entire sentence is so annoying to me that my mind goes numb when I look at it. I really believe you will do a much better job of fixing it than I ever could ...

One thing I have always wanted to add to the CG article is a sound byte of a native Spanish speaker (Argentine, if possible, but not necessarily if one can't be found) pronouncing Che Guevara. I was wondering if Spangineer might be willing to do this? (We could use the Template:Audio to insert it into the introduction, immediately after his name.)

Finally, just wanted to tell you that at present I am doing a bit of work on the "Youth" section, trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised about it ... Polaris999 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A question I would like to ask you --

This is another matter that has been pending for quite a while and I would like to get your feedback about it. In the "Capture and execution" sub-section, we find the following sentence:

A CIA agent and veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, Félix Rodríguez, headed the hunt for Guevara in Bolivia.

My question is, who qualifies as a "veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs"? I would assume that only a person who had actually participated in the invasion would qualify. This sentence attracted my attention because I had never before heard that Félix Rodríguez had been one of the invaders. I did some research and learned that, in fact, he was not one of the invaders, although it seems that he was a covert CIA agent operating in Havana before the invasion occurred. (And after its failure he sought "political asylum" in an embassy friendly to the USA.) On this basis, I would not describe him as a "veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs", but I hadn't bothered to make an issue of this before now. However, since the CG article is now a FAC, I want to strive for as close to 100% accuracy as we can get ... Polaris999 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. As for the sentence troubling you, I'm going to take a shot at rewriting it. As for the Audio of pronounciation; that would be an excellent idea. Have you already found the sound byte? As for the Felix Rodriguez part; I ahve also done some research and found that he was not part of the invasion. I'm going to remove the part about him being a veteran of the invasion. LordViD 19:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful that you are going to re-work that unfortunate sentence. Re Rodriguez, I think the sentence reads much better the way you have re-written it; however, I notice that the source note does seem to indicate that he is accepted as a member of the "Brigade 2506" even though he didn't participate in the landing.

Re the sound byte, we have to get a native Spanish speaker to record and upload the pronunciation file. I think that the person should say, "Ernesto Che Guevara". Once they have uploaded it as an .ogg file, I will bring it into the CG article in the aforementioned location. I thought that Spangineer may be or might know a native Latin American (preferably Argentine) speaker who would make this sound byte for the article. Or perhaps you know someone else? Or maybe we could put a request on Wikipedia for an Argentine to do this for us? (Here is an example: Médecins Sans Frontières)

I have been contending with a big mess that one of the people who frequently "contributes" to the CG page made a short while ago. He added a hyperlink (which happens to be superfluous since we already have a source note linking to the same URL in that very paragraph) right smack into the middle of one of the existing refs!! I had to go back to an earlier version and pull out the whole paragraph and restore it. I don't see any reason to add a second source note for the same URL, unless you say otherwise ... Polaris999 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for the late reply. I have tried to rewrite that sentence, but it is very frustrating and I find it difficult to do so. My only thought here would be to remove the "on dubious grounds" part, so the sentence reads: They believe that Guevara murdered individuals and took their property, seized private manors for himself.... How does that sound?

As for the sound byte, I will ask Spangineer, If he can't then we will probably have to put up a request for it. Regarding the hyperlink; you were perfectly right in removing it. :) LordViD 18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordViD. Many thanks for your reply and for checking with Spangineer to see if he can do the pronunciation byte. Today I have moved a couple of sections at the end around, hoping to improve the overall structure of the article. For this, I have been using Tony Blair -- which is an FA -- as a model. Please take a look when you have a chance and see if you approve or wish to re-vert my changes.

Re that toxic sentence: Do you think that it might be better to say "They say" or "They maintain" rather than "They believe" because who knows whether they really believe this or not; seems to me that they probably know it isn't true but are just circulating these -*-*- for propaganda purposes. Anyway, I leave it wholly to your discretion. Polaris999 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on those changes you made! I've rewritten the sentence according your suggestions and I've asked Spangineer for the audio clip; I'm waiting for his reply. Thanks! LordViD 18:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, LordViD. I am very glad that you like my latest changes. I think you did an excellent job re-working that sentence, and it is great news that Spangineer is going to do the pronunciation clip! (I read his acceptance on his Talk page.) Dakota is interested in putting semi-protection on the article, which I wholeheartedly support. Thanks principally to your noteworthy efforts, IMHO the CG article is now in the best shape ever. Polaris999 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this has grown into a very long discussion! Anyway, I have a few things to discuss with you regarding the article;

In the lead, it says Guevara both studied medicine and traveled "rough" throughout Latin America.... The word "rough" has been bothering me for a while now, as I feel that it breaks the "flow". My thoughts would be to remove it, or remove the speech marks around it. But if you see otherwise then let's leave it.

In the Early Life section, it says ...earned the nickname "Fuser" (a contraction of "El Furibundo Serna").... I think a note should be added translating what "El Furibundo Serna" means.

Other than that, the article is looking perfect! Thanks. LordViD 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, LordVid. I am not sure what the best means to convey the information about the way CG travelled through Latin American might be, but I do think we should try to do this -- because many upper-class Argentines travel "throughout Latin America" but never see it the way Che did because they fly from city to city, stay in posh hotels, etc. Do you know of some other word to describe the type of travel he did? In Europe, he probably would have done youth hosteling, but since such hostels didn't exist in LA they had to find shelter as best they could. Perhaps we could say he "travelled by motorbike and motorcycle throughout Latin America"? -- but it seems that adds too many more words. Perhaps we should try it without the " " marks as you suggest. Or if you feel that it isn't necessary, go ahead and do just take it out. The truth is, that entire sentence is definitely not a favorite of mine but I have not had any inspiration as to how it could be improved ...

Re el Furibundo, I was just sort of assuming that 99% of English speakers would know intuitively what "Furibundo" means, but it will be no problem to include an approximate English equivalent there. Do you think that "Raging" comes close?

I noticed last night that the CG article survived a "cut" that was made of FAC, so that is encouraging! BTW I am working on a Timeline, which I hope to have ready today -- I just have to do a bit of programming on the template. You don't happen to know how to do a pop-up in Wikipedia, do you? Or perhaps it can't be done, as I don't recall ever seeing one. Anyway, if I could figure that out, it would be my first choice for the timeline ... Polaris999 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polaris, I also dislike this sentence, but since there's no alternative right now let's leave everything as it is and maybe revisit it later. As for the "el Furibundo", I can assure you 99% of English speaker would not know what Furibundo means :) - "Raging" puts it perfectly.

Good luck on the timeline; I won't be of any help since my technical skills aren't really that great, so I wouldn't know how to make a pop-up.

There's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a long time; when are you going to add your vote to the FAC page? I assumed you would be the first to do so since you're the major contributor to this article. LordViD 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordVid -- Perhaps one of us will come up with a better idea for that sentence -- hope so!! About my voting on the FAC page, I had thought that the fact that I am a major contributor to the CG article sort of disqualified me from casting a vote, because my vote would hardly been seen as "impartial". Do you really think I can/should vote? Is it customary for "major contributors" to do so? Polaris999 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disqualified from voting except the nominator. Your vote could only increase the chances of this article being featured. :) LordViD 15:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and before I forget; That is one excellent timeline! Great work! LordViD 15:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining re the FAC vote -- as you may have noticed, I have now recorded my Support for the nomination. I am very happy that you like the Che Timeline, and I think that your Che Topics is superb and a marked improvement over what we had in the "See also" section previously. Did you see I made a few minor edits in various sections tonight? At this point, no other additions or enhancements occur to me. I have been thinking about the request for a section re "Che the Thinker" -- don't know whether I should try to add a couple of paragraphs to attempt to address this or if we should leave the article "as is" and plan to add a "daughter" article on this topic some time in the future. I am inclined to favor the latter alternative and would appreciate very much hearing your views ... Polaris999 08:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments on the topics, though I need your help in expanding some entries and removing some. I forgot, for example, that the 26th of July Movement was a group of people, and not a political event. So I wanted to ask you some questions;

1) Are Carlos Fonseca, Luis Carlos Prestes and Colegio Cesar Chavez really that relevant to Guevara? 2)Should we I add Communism to the topics, or should I remove Marxism/Socialism, or should I leave everything as it is? 3)Do you know anything else I can add/remove?

As for the "Che the thinker", if you feel you would be able to make an article about the subject, then do so, and a brief summary could be added to the Che Guevara article, like the "Involvement" section. Thanks for adding your support! LordViD 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordViD. Thank you for correcting my accidental deletion of the word "addressing" in that caption! BTW that audio clip is an excellent one and I would very much like to include it somewhere in the article, but I had to remove it from that location because upon listening to it again I suddenly realized that, although the fragment in question closely resembles a paragraph of his speech at the UN, it was in fact taken not from the UN speech but rather from a speech (perhaps a kind of rehearsal for the UN appearance) that he had made in Santiago de Cuba a few days before. So right now I am trying to figure out where I might be able to insert a link to it ...

Now, on to your questions re the topics. First, perhaps we should differentiate in that section between the 26th of July which was a political event (i.e., the attack on the Moncada Barracks in 1953) and the 26th of July Revolutionary Movement, since both are important. Or perhaps, since CG of course did not participate in the attack on the Moncada Barracks, we should not include that link? ... (your choice!) Second, I think that Marxism definitely needs to be included, but perhaps not Communism.

Concerning the other three you mention, I would favor eliminating Luis Carlos Prestes and Colegio Cesar Chavez; however, Carlos Fonseca is more closely linked to Che than many people realize and I would therefore like to retain that reference.

I will be trying to think of more entries for that section and hope to have a few suggestions for additions to forward to you later today.

I would like to ask your opinion about the following sentence which I have highlighted in red. Specifically, I would like to know how you feel about the assertion, "This statement is made more credible by ... ". Personally, I don't find that what follows there makes the statement about the missiles one whit more or less credible, so would like to know what you think. In case you agree with me on its low relevancy here, particularly in view of its highly speculative nature, how would you feel about my moving it into a source note connected to his trip to NYC and UN speech in the next paragraph?

Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. During an interview with the British newspaper Daily Worker some months later, he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities.[19] This statement is made more credible by the putative links of Che Guevara to Québécois terrorist groups (including Canadian Michelle Duclos) who participated in the foiled plot to destroy the Statue of Liberty in New York City.[20][21]

Lastly, I think that I will make some notes with a view to possibly writing a sub-article on his ideas and then see what (if anything) evolves therefrom ... Polaris999 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaris..extremely sorry for the (very) late reply. Firstly, thank you for your advice; I have revised the template according to your suggestions. Secondly, you're right about that sentence; feel free to convert it into a source note if you wish. LordViD 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordViD -- I apologize too for not getting back to you earlier about possible additions to the "See also" section. It seems to me that most of the topics we might want to include there already have links because we mention them in the text of the article. The only additional topic I have been able to come up with that might (or might not) be appropriate is Sino-Soviet split which does provide some useful background re the controversy that colored the political environment in Cuba during his final years there. When you have a chance, I would greatly appreciate your having a look at the photo of his birthplace that Pablo_flores took especially for the article and see if you like where I have placed it or perhaps have a better suggestion. (I put his other photos in the CG "Photo Gallery" on the Commons.) Polaris999 06:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaris, thank you for your advice. I don't feel comfortable adding the Sino-Soviet split, as I believe the events in the See also should be directly related to Guevara. I saw the picture of Guevara's birthplace, and I must say it's a very welcome addition and a great change from all those black and white photographs :-)

On a different note, something that has been bothering me with the article is the "Films and video games" section. Most of the video games listed are speculated to be references of Guevara, and I don't believe we need a list of every reference to Guevara in video games. I would like to omit this useless list. As for the films, my thought would be to move them to the support section, but that will break the tone and flow of the support section, so I would like to hear your thoughts on all this. Thanks. LordViD 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordViD: The previous topic has gotten so long that I thought it was time to start a new one! Very glad to hear that you like the photo of the house and its placement. I agree with you re keeping the "See also" section for articles directly related to Che. About what to do with the videogames section, I have mixed feelings. If it were to disappear, I personally would not mind at all; however, while working on this article over the past many months, I have observed that there are several users who every so often come on and add new titles, details, etc. to that section. I have the feeling that it must mean something to them and would therefore be hesitant about removing it completely. Re the films, I don't think that they can be moved in toto into the Support section because it is my understanding that some of them are not supportive, and, in general, it just doesn't seem to be the right place for them. Do you think it might be possible to convert the entire "In Films and videogames" section into a separate "daughter" article and then include it in the "See also" section as you have done with "Involvement"? Polaris999 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, LordViD -- I need to ask you about something else. Specifically, in the "Criticism" sub-section, there is a paragraph consisting of one sentence, to wit:

Some critics, such as Che-Mart, have merchandised their dislike of Che Guevara by marketing T-shirts poking fun at both Che Guevara and his supporters, casting aspersions, for example, on what they perceive as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalism's hottest-selling images.[57]

It is my understanding that one-sentence paragraphs are greatly deprecated by Wikipedia (and all other publishers with which I am familiar). I notice on the "Talk" page that someone raised the question as to whether the merchandising of anti-Che items should be considered a form of criticism. Anyway, my primary concern is the "orphan" paragraph and what to do about it ... Polaris999 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have a chance, would you please take a look at the way the "Legacy" and "Criticism" sections are handled in John F. Kennedy to see if you think we might try to modify the CG article along similar lines? The "Legacy" section of Theodore Roosevelt is also interesting ... Polaris999 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaris, good choice on starting a new section! Also, thank you for starting a daughter article, thus ridding us of the foul "Films and video games" section. However, I believe leaving it as an empty section in the main article with a link is not the best way to go. I think it would be better to write a brief (one or two sentences long) paragraph in that section, under the link to the daughter article. Also how would you feel about making the "Popular culture" section a subsection of "Legacy" section?

Re the paragraph, I will have alook at it now and try to merge it.

As for the section organisation; are you suggesting that we merge "support" with "legacy" (with "popular culture" being a subsection), and move "criticsm" to its own section? That is fine by me and would probably improve the article. LordViD 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordViD, As I had a few minutes, I decided to go ahead and make some changes (as you noticed) so that you could see how they look and then decide whether to keep them or revert. Glad you like the "spin-off" -- I think that this will also make the video game fans happy as they will now be able to add more content to their section.

The option you describe, i.e. merging '"support" with "legacy" (with "popular culture" being a subsection), and move "criticism" to its own section' is one I was considering. Would you want to do the re-structuring? :)Then I think that we also need to improve the Legacy section by adding to it -- I have a couple of ideas about that. (Maybe I can bring in some of the thoughts about his contributions to philosophy there.) ...

Thank you for taking a look at "orphan" to see what can be done there! Polaris999 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this discussion will turn into a long one too! I have merged the orphan and restructured the sections per your suggestions. A few points come up now;

It would be nice to have a picture in the crticism section - any ideas?
What was the reason behind renaming "Published works"?

Thanks! :-) LordViD 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the re-structuring, LordVid! Many thanks!! Concerning a photo for the Criticism section, sorry but I have no idea. The only images of this type that I have seen are those of "anti-Che" merchandise via the CheMart link, don't know if that is what you are thinking of? Because other than that what would the possibilities be, except perhaps a book cover?

Re the name change from "Published works" to "List of works" -- that section had been called, as I recall, simply "Works" for a long time and then I added the "Published". But several times when reading through the article I have wondered if the title "Published works" might confuse some readers into thinking that the books listed are references for the article, so I thought maybe a name change was in order. Some Wiki articles use a "List of works", so I thought I would try that. But perhaps "Che Guevara's Published Works" would be a better option? Or, if you prefer going back to "Published Works" that is fine with me. (What bothers me a bit is that since no author is listed for these works, unless we do something to make it clear that they are Che's works, this is not necessarily apparent to readers who are unfamiliar with them.)

Although I hadn't realized this earlier, I suppose that the demand for a section about Che's philosophy arises from the sentence, "Guevara's supporters believe he may yet prove to be the most important thinker and activist in Latin America since Simón Bolívar ..." written by I do not know whom. If we are going to keep that reference to "thinker" in the article, I suppose that we shall have to provide at least a few paragraphs and perhaps a sub-section to develop it. Polaris999 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaris. Like you said, I was thinking of adding a pic of one of those anti-Che shirts from Che-Mart[1], but I don't know the legal status of such a picture.

Re the name change; I agree with you on the confusion thing, though I don't like "List of works". The best compromise here would be to call it as you suggested: "Che Guevara's published works", but for the sake of briefness, let's call it "Guevara's published works". Is that okay with you?

Re that unsourced sentence, I would prefer to have a sub-section on his philosophies regardless of that sentence's presence or not, for the sake of comprehensiveness and for the sake of satisfying some of the objectors to this article. However, that would only mean more work for you since you are the primary "author" of this article and probably the only one who knows enough to write abuot the subject. Thus the decision of removing it or keeping it is entirely up to you.

Another thing; an anon has removed your name change to the Early life section. I tend to support this decision, since "Family heritage and early life" is just too long, and the family heritage part is only one paragraph of the entire section and thus not important enough to include in the title. Also, a small edit war is occuring in which several users are adding the Category:Humanitarians to the article and several others removing it. What do you think? Thanks.LordViD 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, LordVid: I think that "Guevara's Published Works" would be a good solution. Re the change of title of the section "Family heritage and early life", I have seen that usage in other FA articles and prefer it because it is more accurate, but, on the other hand, it is really a matter of minimal importance to me which version is used, so let's leave it as "Early Life". Concerning the edit warring around Category:Humanitarians, I would say that it was certainly Che's intention to be a humanitarian, but whether or not he achieved that goal is probably an evaluation that each individual who reads about him must make on his/her own, so let the edit warring continue ... It remains my intention to write at least a few paras about his ideas, but I got side-tracked yesterday by the discovery of some fascinating information on his family background (perhaps you have noticed that I am working on his genealogy on wikiTree ((and elsewhere)). Hopefully, I will get back to "Thought" today: I find it a daunting task because I want to be very careful not to misrepresent any of his ideas. Polaris999 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polaris. I have, on your say-so, reverted to the title you prefer. I'm pretty sure writing about Guevara's ideas is a daunting task, and I wanted to say that everybody who has read this article really appreciates your hard work into turning this article into one of the best on Wikipedia. Thanks. LordViD 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LordVid: Many thanks for your words of encouragement and for everything you have done and are doing to make this into a first-class article!!

I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to whether or not we should include in the paragraph in "Family heritage and early life" a mention of the fact that Che's great-great-great grandfather, Don Luís Peralta, at one time owned the land on which Oakland, Alameda, Fruitvale, San Leandro, etc. (most of the area occupied by the cities on the eastern slope of San Francisco Bay) now stand, in addition to most of New Mexico, having received the original land grant from the King of Spain. When Che was asked about his family background, he often replied jestingly that he knew "very little" about it -- although, in fact, he knew more about it than perhaps he would have wished. It was a family joke that if his father, Ernesto Guevara Lynch, had exercised his claim to American citizenship (to which he was entitled because both of his parents were U.S. citizens, having been born in California), Che and his siblings would have grown up as U.S. citizens rather than Argentines ... Polaris999 20:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polaris, feel free to add that informaton, though it'd be best if you kept it a paragraph or so long. A user has added a sentence about Neo-Nazis wearing Che t-shirts in the Legacy section, frankly, I don't know what to do wit it. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. LordViD 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordVid: Thank you for your reply -- I would keep that additional information about the California background to perhaps one or two sentences (just telling about the Peralta connection, I do not plan to mention anything about his father's right to claim U.S. citizenship because, since he didn't, it is just an amusing "what if"). Re the "sentence about Neo-Nazis wearing Che t-shirts" that someone has inserted into the Legacy section, my reaction is: The unexpected is always upon us. Like you, I have no idea what to do with it, nor can I imagine why Neo-Nazis would want to wear Che's image. Nevertheless, it is interesting to learn that this is occurring. Is there a "higher authority" on Wiki to which one can appeal for guidance in situations like this? Polaris999 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Higher authority"? I dont't think there is. I have researched the topic though, and found this link on Che-Lives[2]] which deals with the topic, but I still can't understand why the Neo-nazis are wearing Che shirts. I may research this further, and expand on that sentence. LordViD 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordVid. That link on che-lives.com is very interesting. It seems that their basic motive, as explained in the abc.es article, is to seek to widen their appeal beyond their core group and that they think that wearing Che T-shirts will help them to do this. They either don't know about, or simply don't care about, the fact that he was totally opposed to all forms of fascism. This bizarre trend would seem to represent the latest, and most perverted, manifestation of the exploitation phenomenon. Polaris999 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "higher authority" I was thinking of seems to be the RfC process. But hopefully what you are going to write will obviate the need to go there ... Polaris999 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Do you know Spanish so that you were able to read the abc.es? If not, I would be glad to do a Q&D translation for you ... Polaris999 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More: I just came across the cover of Der Spiegel, #46 of 2005, presumably mid-November, which features Che and Gandhi on the cover and has as the caption: "The Inheritors of Gandhi and Guevara: Europe's Peaceful Revolutionaries". Maybe you could somehow merge this and the neo-nazi bit together explaining how his image is being utilized by (apparently) all sides in Germany. Here is a link to the image, in case you wish to use it: [3] Polaris999 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Polaris. An anon has removed that Neo-Nazi sentence, I'll re-add it shortly when I have the material ready. Thank you the pic, and also, I will need that translation as my spanish is very bad. Perhaps more improtantly, a user has added two "citation needed" tags at two different statements in the "criticism" section. LordViD 15:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

I'm glad you like the reorg; hopefully there won't be a problem with the "cultural impact" section; sometimes people like to see prose rather than a list. In my opinion though it's fine as is. I also just added a few sentences to the lead about Guevara's early life; hopefully it provides useful context and helps address mav's objection. Feel free to play around with it. Oh, and I think I agree with you on citing Guevara's book; it's already in the references so it should be fine. Oh, one more thing—while I appreciate the compliment on my editing skills, you're the one who deserves praise for doing great work on this article and turning it into a strong FAC candidate. Nice job! --Spangineer (háblame) 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your comment on my user page. It makes me feel a little better knowing someone actually cares. Moe ε 05:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che Recording

I'd probably be considered fluent in the language (some of my Spanish professors think so at least), but my accent is definitely distinguishable from that of a native speaker. Also, my accent is more along the lines of a Mexican, not an Argentinian. I've never done a sound recording for wikipedia before, so I'll have to figure out how to do that. All that said, I've got some free time over the next couple days (starting in about 8 hours), so I'll look into it and see if I can work something out. In any case, if I can't do it, I'll try to find someone on the Spanish wikipedia who can do it for us. Sound like a plan? --Spangineer (háblame) 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)

I really appreciate the kind note you left on my talk during my absence. I think I'm coming to terms with the fact that I'm an addict, and nothing short of disaster will keep me away from here for long! :) I look forward to seeing you again in the quiet corners of the 'pedia where we run across each other. Since you provide at least as much reasoned wisdom as I do, I'm sure things have been running smoothly! Best wishes and thanks again, Xoloz 18:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara

Oh man! have you never heard suit about his fought against the diktator in Cuba, his fought against the poverty in south american and against the americans. Swedenman 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hade said how he is a humanitarian. Swedenman 19:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been in Iraq? Probert 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedenman

Hi! Any idea how to treat user:Swedenman? He is currently adding the category "humanitarians" arbitrarily. Mind you, Swedenman is identical with Filipman on Swedish wikipedia. So far he has been blocked 8 times for unreflecting edit wars and abuse of other users, see sv:block log. Probert 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted!!

Hello LordVid -- Take a look: the CG article now has a full star. Again, many, many thanks for everything you have done to make this possible. (BTW I am working on the "Thinker" section and will post a draft somewhere when it is ready and let you know.) Polaris999 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For you, **LordViD**,
in recognition of your dedicated efforts, patience and perseverance in improving the **Che Guevara** article and guiding it through to FA status. Polaris999 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]