"

 First.Regarding the above very respectable commentary by the also very respectable editor , I feel I must affix this preliminary response, as for the upcoming weeks I won't be able to build a properly documented reply. You say that I  'unilaterally and without a source named Guevara as an official ""executioner"".'  Not true, I did supply a reference  from a reliable source (Behind Che Guevara’s mask, the cold executioner Times Online (from The Sunday Times) September 16, 2007) that I later displaced downward. Yes, I am clearly not interested in the consensus of blatant leftist editors who regard Ernesto ""Che"" Guevara as their personal hero, or idol, or totem, who believe he should be thought of as an exemplary human being. If user Nubiatech feels offended by the word 'bullshit', I may also feel offended when he/she childishly calls 'POV' my qualification of mass executioner, which by the way is an historical fact, as many sources prove, and which should be familiar terrain to . With all due respect, when he states that ""...none of the scholarly journals, or major biographies refer to Guevara primarily in such a manner"", one wonders if he has gone through the immense mass of documentation available, for example, from Cuban exiles? The qualification to use should be mass murderer, which Guevara was, instead of the milder executioner. To display respect or deference toward an overt criminal is not only unjustifiable, it is plain hypocrisy.

 Second, the WP:NPOV guideline states:
 ""Balance
 Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."", etc. 

 Let's briefly examine what the lead section states about ""El Che"", to see if all viewoints are represented:
  he was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary,  (sounds respectable enough, perhaps chic, even classy)
 (he was a) politician,                       (respectable enough)
 (he was an) author,                          (sounds very respectable)
 (he was a) physician,                        (very respectable indeed)
 (he was a) military theorist,                (respectable enough)
 (he was a) guerrilla leader.                 (respectable for some)
 It should be obvious that there is no balance at all in the above qualifications; they all depict a character that ought to attract admiration, to say the least, hiding the ""insignificant"" fact that he was a three-hundred-fold manslayer, even calling POV a reference to it. This is the logical consequence of the diligence with which leftist editors quickly delete anything that might mar their hero's image, and even cry foul (like  above) when anyone doesn't abide by their rules. This user even writes ""POV (not a fact) mentioned with due weight elsewhere on the article"" in his reverting edit summary. Question: if it already is mentioned elsewhere, why there it's not considered 'POV', while within the lead section it is? The marrow of the discussion is that we are not talking of viewpoints here, we are talking about facts.  
 
 Third. I've been following the WP:Ignore all rules rule, mentioned by  in a prominent location in his user page, toward the objective of having Wikipedia tell the truth, which doesn't appear to be among the most important ones in this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help to tell me about it). I will come back, promise. Regards,   "