Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 10

message: Hello everybody -- I have some concerns about the following sentence in the lead paragraph of the CG article and would like to know if they are shared by others. Here is the sentence under discussion:
:Through these experiences he became convinced that only revolution could remedy the region's economic inequality, leading him to study Marxism and become involved in Guatemala's social revolution under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.
In order of importance, my concerns are: (i) I am not sure that what Arbenz did/was doing in Guatemala qualifies as a "social revolution"; (ii) I question whether it is accurate to state that CG was "involved in Guatemala's social revolution" (or whatever else it might be called) since, to the best of my knowledge, he was more of an onlooker than a participant; (iii) I don't think that the phrase "the region's economic inequality" is the optimal choice as it does not make it clear whether the inequality in question was among people within the region (i.e., a markedly skewed distribution of income) or an inequality in GDP between "the region" and some other unspecified region.
I would appreciate hearing from other editors whether they consider my concerns to be serious ones that should be addressed or whether they consider that the sentence is fine "as is".  Thank you -- Polaris999 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbenz's plan seems to have been more agrarian reform than social revolution and agreed CG seems to have been more the onlooker than a participant based on a google search and the Arbenz article does not mention CG.--Dakota 06:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence is incorrect - in both Guevara's involvement (or lack of) in Guatemala's internal politics - and in the description of the "social revolution". As Dakota notes, Arbenz was primarily instituting land reforms. It may be considered a social revolution - and I'm sure it was the objective of some in the Arbenz administration, as well as the belief of some in Washington - but to call it such here gives perhaps a false impression of a Cuba style radical transformation. Though I haven't come up with any wording to improve that sentence, so I'm all ears.--Zleitzen 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions requested 

message: ::Indeed EJ appears to be facing a period of dissidence on wikipedia as we write. Another user has taken issue with his refusal to register alongside his robust talk page activity on various pages, I am at present attempting to broker a resolution to ensure his continued participation! --Zleitzen 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted my comments at User_talk:Durova#El_Jigue -- Polaris999 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Raúl's massacre of soldiers in a ditch (70-100 people) - and similar executions that occured sporadically in the immediate aftermath are verifiable by all available sources that I have seen. The best summary I have seen for the total number of executions since 1959 reads "The dividing line between those who have an axe to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range". Though we would need to consider what material is in direct relation to Guevara for this article.--Zleitzen 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: El Jigue

message: An anon editor restored much material that was subsequently rejected or improved, the material uses repetition from earlier sections, was poorly written, carried unreliable sources, gave undue weight to weak or obscure theories, was rejected by consensus, was in effect a POV fork and ultimately diminished the credibility of a featured article. One of the most contentious aspects of editing is when one removes so called "criticisms". My reply to that is always the same - write the criticisms in a serious manner that one would expect to read in an encyclopedia, write them from varied, academic or serious sources, and don't create huge chunks of material that even to the most neutral observer would read like an amateur hack job. It would seem that we had overcome that problem with this article, it would be a shame of the credibility was reduced again.--Zleitzen 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear not have read the section you are speaking of, which detailed the "pros and cons" in approximately the same number of words as the two sections before being merged. You also seem to be disputing the article because it now has "factual accounts". Out of interest, which section of the article now reads "love of che"? --Zleitzen 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be clear in re-reading that we now have 2 sections that essentially say the same thing, the labor camps, the economic failures, the stint at La Cabana, the Paul Berman quote. What remains is a couple of dramatic quotes from non-notables such as "sociopathic thug" which read more like a school essay than any encyclopedia article. That the above anon user hasn't noticed that he/she has duplicated a section, despite making several edits and posting a long uncivil screed at the top of this page beggars belief. It should be open to other users whether this is an improvement.--Zleitzen 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon edits

message: Criticism of Che Guevara 
Though he has been labeled by some as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including most of the Cuban exile community and some refugees from other countries under communism, view him as a killer and terrorist. They claim that he ordered the execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons and peasants against the Cuban Revolution in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a “sociopathic thug”.http://www.nysun.com/article/24987 Other US newspaper critics have made similar remarks. These critics point out that Che Guevara was personally responsible for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons, and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. They also believe that Guevara was a “blundering tactician”, not a revolutionary genius, who has not one recorded combat victory. Guevara founded Cuba's forced labor camp system, establishing its first forced labor camp in Guanahacabibes to re-educate managers of state-owned enterprises who were guilty of various violations of "revolutionary ethics".Samuel Farber, "The Resurrection of Che Guevara", Summer 1998. William Paterson University online, accessed June 18,2006. Many years after Guevara's death, Cuba's labor camp system was used to jail dissidents of the Revolution. http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/che.html http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/005514.php http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-30-guevara-edit_x.htmhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19823 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535],[http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6300.html
Critics believe Guevara was ineffective and in reality a poor tactician. They dispute accounts of the Battle of Santa Clara; on the capturing of a train supplying heavy reinforcements, critic Álvaro Vargas Llosa writes, "Numerous testimonies indicate that the commander of the train surrendered in advance, perhaps after taking bribes." Álvaro Vargas Llosa, "The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand", 11 July 2005. Online at the New Republic, accessed January 52006. Humberto Fontova, "Fidel's executioner". FrontPage magazine Online, accessed February 26 2006 
Some claim Guevara was a failure at managing the Cuban economy, as he "oversaw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America’s four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship."History News Network, "Che Guevara... The Dark Underside of the Romantic Hero". Online, accessed February 26 2006Free Cuba Foundation, "Che Guevara's Dubious Legacy". Online, accessed February 26 2006 There is also the belief by some critics that, because there is no documentary evidence of Guevara having earned a medical degree, he was not actually a doctor.Humberto Fontova, "Fidel's Executioner".FrontPage magazine Online, accessed February 25 2006
In "The Cult of Che",Paul Berman, "The Cult of Che", 24 September, 2004. Slate Online, accessed June 18, 2006. writer Paul Berman critiques the film The Motorcycle Diaries and argues "that modern-day cult of Che" obscures the "tremendous social struggle" currently taking place in Cuba. For example, the article discusses the jailing of dissidents, such as poet and journalist Raúl Rivero, who was eventually freed after worldwide pressure due to a campaign of solidarity by the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba Ministry of Foreign Affairs Czech Republic, "International Committee for Democracy in Cuba". Online, accessed June 18, 2006. which included Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, Árpád Göncz, Elena Bonner and others. Berman claims that in the U.S., where Motorcycle Diaries received standing ovations at the Sundance film festival, the adoration of Che has caused Americans to overlook the plight of dissident Cubans. This glorification of Che is also satirized by online site che-mart.com, which, among other things, markets T-shirts poking fun at both Guevara and his supporters, casting aspersions on what they perceive as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalism's hottest-selling images.USA Today, "Che Guevara should be scorned — not worn" Online, accessed February 26 2006
Critics also believe Che executed more than just political figures, but also political dissidentsFontaine, Pascal Latin America and the Communist experience, essay published in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression Courtois, Stéphane et. al. ed. Laffont, Robert. Paris (1997). Of Guevara, Fontaine wrote "The prison of La Cabaña, where he presided, is the setting for numerous executions, principally of old comrades in arms who remained democrats.".
Although much criticism of Guevara and his legacy emanates from the political center and right, there has also been criticism from other political groups such as anarchists and civil libertarians, some of whom consider Guevara an authoritarian, anti-working-class Stalinist, whose goal was the creation of a more bureaucratic state-Stalinist regime.Libertarian Community, "Ernesto "Che" Guevara, 1928-1967".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs) 
------
Just because you don't like the sources or do not like what the sources say does not mean you can delete it.  This is called bias, it is also a violation of the rules on NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs) 
----------------------------
Propagandists have been systematically removing criticism of Che from this page. Not surprisingly, these are the same editors removing cited criticism from other "celebrated" communist pages.  You all do not have the power to decide what is right and wrong, this leads to a one sided biased account.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs) .</small>
To reiterate: The New York Sun is barely journalism, much less a credible source on historical figures. I could find alot of people who don't like Che, but does say, your uncle's opinion belong here? Well the answer is no, just becasue some nobody has expressed an opinon, it does NOT mean we have to include it in an encyclopedia. If you want to get your shots in on Che, or anyone else for that matter, start a blog. This isn't the place for quoting ad hominem attacks. Palenque 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Please sign posts. This is a very active talk page and editors find it much easier to reply if they know who made posts. Having to search the edit history is time consuming and sometimes it is difficult to find who posted what
.Thanks.--Dakota 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not difficult for an anon just enter four tildes~~~~ at the end of your post. You can also use the edit toolbar option , click the signature icon () to add the four tildes.--Dakota 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a User:Anon also.--Dakota 06:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article%3F#Criticism_sections
-- Polaris999 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning "criticism" sections 

message: "New users in particular are often entranced by the openness of :Wikipedia and dive right in. That's a good thing. But please note: 'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, without carefully looking at your edit. In addition, making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea.
In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily. 
"If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. It's also worth reading around some related articles, as what you thought was a problem or omission may vanish after you have followed a few links.
"If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references... If there is a WikiProject associated with the page, you might also want to mention your proposed changes there if they are substantial.
 
"Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page.  Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning." 
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21
:In conformity with the above guideline, I am moving the changes proposed by the Anon user ( who has been posting here as     and    ) from the Che Guevara article onto this Talk page where they can be evaluated, discussed, modified, etc. as the guideline specifies. Please see moved text in quotes below:
-- Polaris999 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hola, Polaris this editor agrees. It is a good idea to discuss any content changes on the talk page before before actually editing any article. This being a featured article and marked as a controversial one perhaps even more so. Only by discussion, evaluation of the proposed content and agreed modification can the content remain encyclopedic and free of pov.--Dakota 02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 2) and 3) 'Common knowledge' is not a valid source. --Nyp 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of Goatboy's comments can be verified by numerous mainstream and key sources, so therefore they are as close to common knowledge as could be. More pressing is the fact that our own article details these factors anyway using sources, rendering the "critics' opinions" largely redundant. I agree with Goatboy that they tacitly reduce any credibility of the claims themselves. Guevara was responsible for many deaths, as one would expect from a self described guerrilla fighter. It is rather like having a criticism section on the Field Marshall Montgomery page, presenting, "critics say Montgomery was responsible for many deaths".  --Zleitzen 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia guideline re editing "Featured Articles" 

message: Z: "El Mejicano" Capitan Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo (who has been alleged involved im the JFK assasination   something I find hard to believe) has been reported in several sources e.g.   to have declared that the train episode was a result of bribery.  The original statement appeared in a Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo (El Diario de Nueva York, June 25th 1959) as yet I have not obtained the original text. Apparently early in the 1960s El Mejicano, who had been sent to kill Rolando Masferrer in Florida, defected instead.  This appears not relate to Masferrer's later death.  By the way as a number of other communists (e.g. Vittorio Vidale) Masferrer was a stalinist killer during the Spanish Civil War, he was wounded in a foot, and in much literature Masferrer is denoted by his stepfalls. his victims are putatively to heard his irregular steps in their last moments.  I wish this "El Mejicano" (there were several" with this nickname in Cuba at the time) would write down his memories.  It is my understanding that a movie with the running title of "El Tigre" on Masferrer (a long standing enemy of Castro) is soon to be available , .  El Jigue 12-12-06
:EJ, it seems quite feasible that the train episode involved some kind of financial cohersion. I believe Polaris has been considering a Battle of Santa Clara article where editors could fully explore this. --Zleitzen 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi EJ and Z.  Do you think we should create such an article? Right now it seems to me that we don't have much WP:V information to put into it, but if you think it's a good idea, let's proceed. -- Polaris999 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that something along the lines of The 'Plains' campaigns would be preferable since discussion of the prior actions is necessary to put Santa Clara (and Yaguajay) in context ... I hope Z and perhaps others will weigh in re the title.  -- Polaris999 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop the blogging, of the 'talk page'. GoodDay 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is already a Battle of Yaguajay article, Polaris, in case you were unaware. As well as Battle of Las Mercedes, Battle of La Plata and Operation Verano articles.--Zleitzen 02:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Zleitzen, indeed I had not seen the Battle of Yaguajay article. So, how then do you feel we should deal with CG's campaign, as a history of his Columna 8 or as a standalone Battle of Santa Clara piece? -- Polaris999 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be better as a Battle of Santa Clara article. With some background context that would cover the column’s activities. In an ideal world this would be a specialised article that neatly feeds off a variety of articles. But with only a skeleton staff of writers dealing with these topics it would be quite a task to organise all these articles to any great satisfaction. But at least it is progress.--Zleitzen 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit concerned about giving it the title Battle of Santa Clara when there seems to be some doubt as to whether it was a battle at all.  However, that is probably one of the matters that we will be able to elucidate as we work on it and, if necessary, we can always re-title it later on.  I think you have more information to put into it than I do, so why don't you start it whenever is convenient for you? -- Polaris999 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The event is widely referenced as the "battle of Santa Clara" though and it is not up to us wikipedia editors to start deciding what name or title an historical event should have when one is already in common usage. Canderra 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is going to be called the "Battle of Santa Clara", I think we must all agree that whatever action occurred in that place at that time is going to be described under that title and there should not be any speech marks surrounding "battle" because that would hardly be appropriate.  Whoever created this discussion topic inserted speech marks around the word "battle" in its title and I do not think that calling a wikipedia article The "Battle" of Santa Clara would be desirable.  Do you agree on this point, Canderra? -- Polaris999 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think an article that covers the period of the column's arrival at Santa Clara University, details the various skirmishes, the train incident and the political machinations behind the scenes would be good. I think it should be called the Battle of Santa Clara as per Hugh Thomas (showing my own bias as to preferred sources here) who describes it as such in his indexing. I realise that I have falsely attributed you with contemplating an article on this topic, Polaris. Looking back at the archives I can find no such comments, and I don't know where I got that idea from! My apologies! To make amends I will attempt to get the article started.--Zleitzen 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Zleitzen, I think our brain waves must have "crossed" because I had been wondering about the advisability of creating such an article, but had been stymied by concerns re the name issue discussed above.  I am grateful that you have taken Occam's razor to all of this and will be creating the Battle of Santa Clara article! -- Polaris999 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "battle" of Santa Clara

message: Apparently Guevara's second surname Lynch does not related to Paraguay Chaco War dictator Francisco Solano Lopez's famous mistress Elisa Alicia Lynch . It seems her surviving sons took the dictator's last name.  However, the name Lynch was originally Irish, as is its application to violence, thus the Elisa and the Che may well have had consanguineous roots.  El Jigue 12-1-06
:Which part of this information, do you think can be added to the article? Remember you're not banned from editing articles. GoodDay 23:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that you should create a 'Elisa Alicia Lynch' article. GoodDay 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: La Lynch

message: Actualy I have read that the oficial report says that his last words were "Párese derecho y apunte bien, va usted a matar a un hombre", which translated would mean "Stand straigth and aim right, you are going to kill a man" and not "I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man".
Beker 21:00, 2 December 2006
:Maybe we should re-visit this matter. I, too, have read that the words cited by "Beker" (above) were the last ones uttered by CG. How do other editors feel about this?  -- Polaris999 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His last words 

message: IP 67.189.188.140 has added the words bolded below to the fourth paragraph of the "Congo/Expedition" subsection:
:South African mercenaries including Mike Hoare, a US Army Special Forces detachment, and Cuban exiles worked with the Congolese army to thwart Guevara.
While I have heard reports that a US Army Special Forces detachment was indeed involved, I am not aware of any WP:V source to support this assertion. Therefore, I am obliged to remove those words (the bolded ones) from the article until IP 67.189.188.140 or someone else can provide a verifiable source. -- Polaris999 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, El Jigue.  Additional documentation re "Mad Mike" and the Cuban exiles would be valuable.  Since we do have some verifiable sources for that information, I decided to leave it in the article. However, the matter of the "US Army Special Forces" remains source-less. Perhaps the Cuban exiles might have been operating as US Army Special Forces?  If they were, this would solve the mystery ... -- Polaris999 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know of a source for this ... ? 

message: There is no basis to say his act of signing as Che was an act of disdain or irony, in fact the note says that it was not.
Chico 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably true that it is better not to attach any motive to his signing the banknotes as he did and let readers decide for themselves what he intended by it. -- Polaris999 19:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature

message: I think sources are needed to say "he was opposed to the existence of money and favored its speedy abolition".
Chico 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Chico, and intend to provide them as soon as time permits. -- Polaris999 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence of Money

message: This is a great 30 minute video on Che that I think people will help get a sense of who Che was.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2825077734855289100&hl=en
I would do this but I am new to wikipedia and I don't want to mess with the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.232.111 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Mark Steele. Excellant find, my friend. Probably the only Steel lecture I haven't seen, and I shall enjoy this over roasted chestnuts and hot tatties.--Zleitzen 00:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please link this video 

message: Hi Everyone, 
I know this isn't directly related to the article on Che Guevara, but it is loosely related. 
I am one of the main contributors of the article on Eva Peron, and I have based the article in many ways on this article about Che. We are currently having a bit of an edit war over whether images of Time magazine covers with Evita are allowed on the page, as well as whether a (please don't laugh) still of Lisa Simpson in the episode The President Wore Pearls is acceptable. 
I note that there are images of Che on covers of magazines, so I was wondering if some editors here could offer some help. I am getting very frustrated, to the point where I almost want to abandon the article due to some of the hostility I'm having to endure. But the Eva Peron article recently made it to Good Article status (largely due to my contributions, though you wouldn't know it for some of the hostility I'm facing), so I don't want to abandon it. There is talk that the article is a good candidate for FA status, though it will obviously need some work to get there. 
Any help in any regard would be appreciated. 
Thank you. 
In Good Faith, 
Andrew Parodi 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help

message: Is there a problem with my deleting :Category:People from Santa Fe Province? The specific category :Category:People from Rosario is included in it and works alone fine. There are some instances where parent and child categories are OK in an article, but doesn't seem to be the case. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:People from...