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