FirstRegarding 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 wont 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 Guevaras mask the cold executioner Times Online from The Sunday Times September   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 heshe 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 WPNPOV 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    Lets 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 threehundredfold 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 heros image and even cry foul like  above when anyone doesnt 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 its 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 Ive been following the WPIgnore all rules rule mentioned by  in a prominent location in his user page toward the objective of having Wikipedia tell the truth which doesnt appear to be among the most important ones in this Encyclopedia if it is Id appreciate anyones help to tell me about it I will come back promise Regards