Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 12

message: There are two Che Guevaras-- the flashy Left-icon, and real Che Guevarra who was an egotistical and obsessive mass-executioner for the Castro regime. Time for the truth to be told: Sources for Che Guevarra Myths.
71.208.219.6 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Che Guevarra Myths Are Many 

message: The current article says:
Hi Zleitzen:
An article by Maite Rico and Bertrand de la Grande has been published this month in Letras Libres (the magazine of Enrique Krauze) claiming that the discovery of the Che remains was a fake.
If I remember correctly you know Spanish. I will quote from today’s article by Mario Vargas Llosa in Reforma: “De todo ello concluyen que los restos del Che no son los que reposan en el museo de Santa Clara […] y que el supuesto descubrimiento fue una pura representación teatral rigurosamente fraguada para complacer a Fidel Castro”.
—Cesar Tort 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Cesar Tort. Indeed, I saw that the other day. Certainly worthy of a mention here - I was hoping someone else would do the honours ;) Here is a good source for the story in English : Bones in Cuban mausoleum are not Guevara's, claims magazine.-- Zleitzen(talk) 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake? 

message: The External Links section is becoming very large.  A number of the links clearly do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, which I am including below for reference. Perhaps upon reading these guidelines, users who have added links that do not meet these criteria will kindly remove them; or, if not, perhaps other editors will take the necessary action ...  -- Polaris999 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for External Links 

message: The following comment was posted a few minutes ago by User:Bogden400 and I am copying it here so that it will receive wider readership among editors. 
Sentence is not clear. Mainly because the explosion is not explained it detail, so people who are reading this will be confused by the phrase "when a second explosion occured", as I was. Mainly because a first explosion is not mentioned. Will somebody with more knowledge about this explosion please edit this sentence to include some background information first.
While I do agree with User:Bogden400 that the explosion of La Coubre is not explained in the paragraph in question in the Che Guevara article, since La Coubre is wikified and the incident is fully discussed in the linked-to WP article, I have hesitated to add text to the CG article to describe the event. However, perhaps a sentence or two should be added to clarify the context? I would like to hear how other editors feel about this, and also see any suggestions as to the text that might be added. Thank you -- Polaris999 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that a sentence or two would be good, Polaris. But I took a look at the paragraph - realised that I hadn't noticed it before - and nearly choked on my cornflakes. Whilst the explanation that the CIA deliberately bombed the boat has always seemed dubious Fidel rhetoric - the most likely explanation being that it was a terrible workplace accident perhaps due to procedural negligence, which happened to coincide with actual attacks on Cuba - the convoluted belief that "Guevara's soviet rivals" were somehow responsible for the explosions is well... a wild conspiracy theory - based on no evidence at all - from an unreliable source here.-- Zleitzen(talk) 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Zleitzen -- Thank you for your comments.  That remark re "Guevara's soviet rivals" was a contribution by EJ.  It confused me when I first read it, then I came to interpret it to mean that Roca, Grobart, and their associates might have sabotaged the ship, presumably with the intention of fomenting further discord between Cuba and the USA. In any case, even if they did so, they certainly did not do it because they were "rivals" of Guevara's since at that point in time he and they were actually collaborators, working hand in hand to lead Cuba along a socialist/communist path. Howver, since no one ever raised questions about this paragraph until now, I had concluded that I must be the only one who had problems with it, and therefore kept silent. Any chance you could apply a touch of the Zleitzen magic to it and bring form out of chaos? -- Polaris999 04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, Zleitzen, for your redact of the paragraph re La Coubre. What a welcome improvement! -- Polaris999 08:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment re ''La Coubre'' Explosion (copied from CG article page) : opinions requested 

message: Some weeks ago, one editor gathered all of the "project banners" that had been placed on this Talk page into a single banner with the text "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.  Click on [show] for further details"; clicking then caused the individual banners to be shown. This method seemed like a good one to me. However, several days ago, another editor re-inserted all of the banners so that they again display individually at the top of the Talk page -- without, however, removing the banner created by the former editor that consolidates all of them as described above.
Obviously, we should not have both methods present on this Talk page simultaneously as is now the case, so I suppose we will have to find out which of the two methods of displaying the banners is preferred. Perhaps we could do an informal poll within this topic where people can express their opinions as to which should be used. -- Polaris999 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Editors have argued about the consolidated banner on other pages, the main argument being that users have to wade through a page of these things before getting to the talk section. However, the consolidated banner hides the important details about the project, and also obscures the relevant WP:Portal link. Increasing access to these elements of wikipedia is essential to make other users aware of the many different pages surrounding the topic and encourage much needed participation. As this article is a prominent page for WP:Cuba, and the Cuba:Portal (for example), it would be a wasted opportunity not to advertise these features. The best option would be keep the banners but just add this template, which still allows our tortured editors to be rid of those meddlesome banners with one click, but keeps them visible for others.  -- Zleitzen(talk) 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments, Zleitzen.  I have inserted Template:skiptotoctalk as you suggested, and remmed out the consolidated banner. -- Polaris999 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine someone will come along any time now and consolidate the banners anyway. By the way, Polaris, what do you make of the new map? I was browsing the sprawling, Joycean Spanish version of the CG article the other day and spotted that an editor had been creating maps like their life depended on it. Eclipsing our timid efforts of cartography on the Cuban Revolution articles. I sneaked out with one and it added to our page. I think another of our pics was deleted without reason - so the Guatemala section needed some complimentary visuals.-- Zleitzen(talk) 06:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy of banners 

message: The intro portrays Guevara as a socialist, but it mentions nothing of his methods which have been highly criticized. Could we please put this in? It is very important and cannot be ignored (it only receives light mention in the article).
I do agree, the intro should mention something about the dark side of him, from the execution of homosexuals to murdering political rivals.  As it is its kind of like having a whole article on Stalin w/o mentioning his purges (ok, so I got to far...but not by much). Gtadoc 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the introduction? 

message: This matter has been previously discussed (
In Talk Archive #2 and In Talk Archive #6) and a consensus reached that the adjective "Marxist" was the best choice for the lead paragraph.
It should be borne in mind that, in the last years of his life, Guevara had become quite critical of Lenin who, he had concluded, was "the culprit" responsible for the series of errors that had ultimately resulted in the Soviet Union taking the "capitalist path". He develops this line of thought in Apuntes críticos a la economía (published by Ocean Press, 1 August 2006), a fact that is recorded by Anderson on page 697 of the edition (pbk.). In view of his position in this regard, I do not see how it can be considered appropriate to label him a "Leninist", but I would welcome the opportunity to read other editors' opinions on the subject. -- Polaris999 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperialism is a leninist concept. "Marxism" by itself denotes something more akin to left communism, council communism, luxemburgism, or simply reformist. But hey, feel free to leave simply "Marxism", its less explanatory and sounds more pejorative, goes well with the tone of the article. Wryn 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist or Marxist-Leninist? 

message: Reference is made here to the "Cuba" section of the main Che Guevara article, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#Cuba , specifically to the first two sentences of its 3rd paragraph, which read as follows:
Guevara became a leader among the rebels, a Comandante (English translation: Major), respected by his comrades in arms for his courage and military prowess,U. S. Central Intelligence Agency, "CIA Biographic Register on Ernesto 'Che' Guevara". Online, accessed July 12, 2006."Commander of one of the largest of the five rebel columns (Column 4), he gained a reputation for bravery and military prowess second only to Fidel Castro himself." During the guerrilla campaign Guevara was feared for his ruthlessness, which Fidel Castro described as an "excessively aggressive quality",  being personally responsible for the execution and torture of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies.Anderson pp. 269-270, 277-278.
1. Re Sentence #1:  This is actually a text string rather than a sentence, having been truncated to the point that it now ends with a comma. Either its original text should be restored or it should be entirely re-written.
2. Re Sentence #2:  This sentence is quite a piece of work, having been written in such a way that it seems to quote Fidel Castro describing Guevara's "ruthlessness".  However, this representation is either a serious misunderstanding or a deliberate deception since Castro's words are taken completely out of context and their meaning grossly distorted.  In order to let editors easily view the actual words spoken by Castro in their original context, I have extracted the relevant paragraphs from the speech in question in both the original Spanish  and an English translation (by Ocean Books ) and pasted them side by side in the table below.  As is apparent, the "aggressiveness" that Castro attributes to Guevara is not "ruthlessness" but rather audacity and his constant willingness to sacrifice his life for others. Not surprisingly, the pages cited in the "source note" attached to this strange sentence, i.e., "Anderson pp. 269-270, 277-278", make no reference whatsoever to this or any other speech by Fidel Castro about Guevara or any other topic.
It is beyond obvious that Sentence #2 does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and needs to be replaced.  While I could have done this myself, I thought it was more in keeping with the Wikipedia community spirit to present the problem here on the Talk page so that all editors who wish to participate in crafting the replacement text will have the opportunity to do so. (Please post your suggestions, comments, etc. below the table.)  Thank you -- Polaris999 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph in urgent need of a re-write 

message: I had read somewhere that Che Guevara had argued with Castro to take control of the missiles and launch them at the United States.  Does anyone have information on this?  The Che Guevara page just states that Guevara was quoted as saying that had the U.S. launched a strike against Cuba, then the missiles would have been launched against the U.S.
i dnt no about tha. but kruscef had authrized nucler weapon attacks if the U.S inadaev(Esskater11 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Missile Crisis 

message: Why isnt there any infomation about the christian labour camps he was in control, or the camps he put the people infected with aids in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.225.93 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I wonder why Guevara's role in setting up camps for AIDS victims in the 1960s is being censored on this page? Surely this is notable. Guevara apparently shows extraordinary malevolent medical abilities by diagnosing a disease that was first known to the mainstream scientific community in the early 1980s. Is there no end to his evil genius? The article should also highlight his planned assassination attempt on John Paul II, his premeditated "Down with Disco" campaign and his warnings of the dangers of the Sony Walkman to children's ears. --Oakhouse 08:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they were referring to the Che putting homosexuals in labour camps, many where they ended up dying.  It is a shame that pretty much everything about the labour camps is ignored in the article though. Gtadoc 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Forced Labour Camps 

message: This article has turned into a total whitewash of Che's activities during and after the Cuban Revolution, and a deep seepage of weasel words has infiltrated the article.  Unverified laudatory and sympathetic claims run rampant.  This article isn't useful or reliable at this point, and requires a total re-write, without the apologist POV. - MSTCrow 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add appropriate tags if you really think so. Or even better - state concrete problematic sections and fix them if you good enough sources.--Svetovid 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't just a complete revert to its Featured version be better? there is a lot of weaselness, removing it manually is an ardous task, a revertion and subsecuent addition of any notable contribution and/or update is a lot more simple and accurate. -凶 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article No Longer Encyclopedic 

message: Who is John Lee Anderson is he a reliable source ? Ericd 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Lee Anderson 

message: the introduction needs to be changed. It doesn't introduce anything.71.235.40.128 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I hear and read so many things about Che Guevara that I can not believe any of the things I read.  The reason is because the people that are writting them are ignorant and communist sympathizers.  I wish everyone would just read Humberto Fontova's "Exposing The Real Che Guevara...And the Useful Idiots Who Idiolize Him."  Economics, Healthcare, poor people are all things you hear about what he and Fidel have done.  However, read the book and you will find out how horribly they destroyed Cuba's Economy.  You will find out that Cuban healthcare was in place since the 1930's and was the foundation for international healthcare reform.  Furthermore, you will find out about how far ahead Cuba was in terms of Social and political correctiveness, women judges, black presidnets and leaders.  Finally, the Labour camps, Not Christian, Not for the sick...Forced labor camps.  In WWII, we called them Concentration Camps and Extermination Camps.  How proud people must be to where shirts or clothes with Che's Photo on it when he has personally killed between 14,000 and 21,000 cubans by his orders. He ran Cuba's Economy to be third world country.  Also Che has run out of Cuba, over 500,000 cubans.  You will see how he was cought trying to destroy American landmarks and people.  How he loathed artist and musicians, but those are the people that find his plight righteous today...he destroyed a culture and a people.  I just hope that the book I recommend is read by at least one person who then can pass it along to others.  Perception is not reality, we can stop this insanity.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.209.239 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 June 2007
:Please sign your posts as explained at the top of this page.
:Please read WP:TALK for guidelines. Do not insult those who disagree with you, do not generalize, and stick to constructive fact-based criticism. This is not the place to advertise books or denounce crimes. Half of what of you said above is simply wrong, another part is incoherent ("personally... by his orders"), and the rest is already in the article in some form, properly sourced. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before being acussed of being communist I will leave clear that I'm not Cuban or in any way related to his movement, now with that out of the way I would recoment you read WP:CIVIL before posting any other comment. -凶 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really tempted to site that book, as though the title is a bit extreme he does make some very good points in it (in a very politically incorrect way) and seems to have done his research.  Some of those points should be in the article, assuming that the purpose of the article is to inform and not simply to glamourize.Gtadoc 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the real Che Guevara? 

message: Just thought I would point out, while its popular to refer to Guevara as a doctor he dropped out of school and while here that would make him unable to take any title in that time and place he could take the title of medic, not doctor. 129.82.217.44 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it was impressive, more so even if we call him by what he was, that he was appreciated and served as a role model is actually hightened by the fact that he chose to do so instead of finishing his education.  Gtadoc 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And that outweighs the five sources saying he was a doctor how? --John 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read them, and have you the ability to determine if the education mentioned qualifies him as a doctor or a medic?  It doesn't seem like the authors of those sources do either.  As for the number I'll add more when I'm off work today.  Gtadoc 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guevara qualified from medical school in March 1953, but would only have been able to practice as a junior until 3-4 years of field work. After that time he could call himself a doctor, not before. This has been much discussed previously. I think you've have misunderstood the Anderson source you added to the content note, it was the Guatemalan Unions that stopped Guevara working as a foreigner because he refused to join the Communist party. This is explained and sourced in the article.-- Zleitzen(talk) 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying, that's interesting. --John 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor

message: Firstly, the added sentence in the lead looks good, and in my opinion is fully appropriate and covers the point properly. Having had a look at Britannica (2004 DVD), its article doesn't mention these killings at all, let alone lead with them, but this mention is appropriate for this much more detailed and informative article. 
However, looking through the article, there does seem to be a NPOV issue with the descriptions of the "Batista regime" and the "government of Fulgencio Batista". My small encylopedias/biographical dictionaries (Chambers and Collins) all describe Batista as a dictator. Britannica gives more detail, saying in its lead that in 1952 Batista returned "as a dictator, jailing his opponents, using terrorist methods, and making fortunes for himself and his associates." The detail describes him as returning "as a brutal dictator, controlling the university, the press and the Congress, and he embezzled huge sums from the soaring economy." The article on Che describes him as joining an "attempt to overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista". In my opinion that is a much more appropriate description, and "Batista dictatorship" should replace "Batista regime" in the lead. Similarly, the first paragraph of the Cuba section should change from "overthrow the government of Fulgencio Batista" to "overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista". The fact that Castro's regime was a dictatorship should not obscure the point that it replaced a dictatorship. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only reservation is that a dictatorship infers only the dictator themself (i.e. Batista) or the small immediate cadre. The term regime covers all those who co-operated, supported and benefited from the dictatorship. Since the contested figures for those executed then it is obviously members of the regime that were involved, and not the individual and immediate political colleagues. LessHeard vanU 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. My concern is that there should be some indication in the lead for those who don't already know that they were overturning a dictatorship: my suggestion would be to change from "Guevara joined Fidel Castro's... Movement, which seized power in Cuba in 1959. ... executions of... officials of the deposed Batista regime." to something on the lines of "Guevara joined Fidel Castro's... Movement, which seized power from the dictator Batista in Cuba in 1959. ... executions of... officials of the deposed regime." The recommendation for the Cuba section remains as above. Hope something on these lines can be agreed. .. dave souza, talk 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to the rewording as proposed. Since only we two are talking about it do you want to wait for further comment, or do you propose being bold? LessHeard vanU 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, have done so after waiting for the page to stabilise a bit. .. dave souza, talk 09:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm going to make some changes to the intro, at the moment its laughably flowery and needs to mention persecution and imprisonment of certain groups considered undesirable.  I'll be finding sources and modifying it, feel free to make your own additions.  Also, it seems the article relies a lot on sources that prefer to glamourize than accurately report so I'll be trying to balance that as well.  Gtadoc 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the phrasing used in this version, though I'd prefer to see a citation for each of those claims. Bladestorm 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly like it as 1)it tries to imply that those on trial actually did things wrong, which it seems some did but many didn't 2) its uses a lot of pov langauge to try to justify the trial 3) it doesn't mention anything about people not connected with the previous government.  4) its all unsourced and tries to put a positive spin on things.  I also want to see something about the prison/labor system that was set up for political adversaries or groups of people that they just didn't like or approve of.  Gtadoc 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (just to check, you do know that I'm talking about the reversion that you set it to, right? Because I'm not seeing where they imply the guilt or innocence of those killed) Bladestorm 17:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Lol, no, I just saw the other one in the link; yeah, I like mine too :) and i'll be trying to add sources to my statements as well, I was refering to my problem with the previous edit.  Gtadoc 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well sorted, another POV issue

message: Che wasn't a medic... he's even said he never cared for medicine...what the hell type of article is this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassman600 (talk • contribs) 23:20, July 11, 2007
:OK - how about President of the Central Bank, then ? Economist ? (Che - economist - I thought you said communist !) -- Beardo 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "medic" description was simply to indicate what he was educated as; I agree that for the most part his life followed a different path than medicine.  I suppose in the end what he was comes down to be what he was to you as an individual, for some he was a hero and a revolutionary, for others he was a mass murderer. Gtadoc 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, he did practice medicine for some time even during the revolution, he tended to the sick. The fact is, he was a doctor. Not mentioning this, rather than mentioning it, would be problematic. Irrer 10:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Che Guevara practiced medicine in some capacity from entering medical college to his death. It is mentioned throughout the article. Though completing medical studies - allowing him to practice medicine - he didn't gain the formal field work required to be identified as "a doctor" in the way we understand it. Hence there was no Dr Ernesto Guevara. When the first paragraph describes him as a doctor, some soul comes along once every few weeks and disputes this, others are so confused they deny that Guevara even studied medicine etc. Better to leave as "as a young man studying medicine..." and have the diploma & details sourced in the article. -- Zleitzen(talk) 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: He did study medicine, and did practice as a medic; he was not, however, a doctor, even in the connotation of those times.  I do agree "as a young man studying medicine" is a good description...although I'm going to put back in sources that indicate what his diploma really was, as the current ones try to give a false impression. Gtadoc 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Re;"...when does a "doctor" go and kill so many people and still be remembered as a "doctor"..."I would refer you to Josef Mengele, and Harold Shipman. The article mentions Guevara took medical studies. It is an indication of his intellectual and educational capabilities, and also gives an insight to his social and economic background. LessHeard vanU 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I do think it should be noted that he left his studies early in order to pursue what he thought to be a different future. Gtadoc 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What che was not... 

message: Should the fact that he's become some sort of cultural/pop icon really be attributed to him? I think rather, this facet of his fame is something that is quite antithetical to all that he believed in. Shouldn't this be discussed in another, perhaps, minor section at the end, rather than at the beginning, of the article? Irrer 10:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Che Guevara became a cultural/pop icon whether he was antithetical or not. It is mentioned frequently in the article and there are links to a whole spin off article which discusses this.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know but i am editing now wearing a Che Guevera shirt. The shirt was made in Asia. I bought it in Europe and i am wearing it in Africa. Che lived most of life in the Americas. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ohhh. Irrer is a sock of User:Mariam83? OMG! What a small world! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Icon

message: I am not understanding, despite having read through the arguments above, why the NPOV tag should be on the article. Since Jimbo originally placed it there but has not provided WP:V and WP:RS sources supporting the tag, cannot others who support his position come up with the properly sourced references to support Jimbo's contentions? This dispute is wasting an enormous amount of editors' time when the dispute can be resolved through the proper citations methods that are Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Sincerely,   Mattisse 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag