Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 3

message: I have reverted the latest changes by User: NWOG. I thought I'd give the reasons
# He says that Cuban exiles cannot be trusted because they hated Che and were responsible for his death. This assumes that every single Cuban exile is collectively responsible for the death and therefore no one can be trusted. I don't think it makes sense to assign collective guilt to a class of people.
# If in fact I see a man shooting a 12 year old boy in cold blood, I am not going to like the man. You cannot then use my dislike of the man to claim that my testimony cannot be trusted because I am biased and have a point of view. If this standard were adopted, no case could possibly be decided.
# To assign motives to a class of people as some people have done in their edit summaries ("They are an enemy of Cuba" etc.) is POV.  If this were a valid way of doing things, then we could never quote primary sources on contentious topics like these- because every one of them will be too close to the action to be unbiased.
--Ravikiran 05:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuban Exiles' testimony

message: If Che was an avid photographer then wouldn't it be a good idea to include some of his photos (possibly on a separate page)? I assume they'd be free of copyright. Anyone know where to find any? DirkvdM 08:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. Not a very large collection, but then it's only meant as an apetiser for the display. I'm still unsure about the copyrights, but the site states that the photos are on loan from the 'Centro de Estudios Che Guevara, Havana, Cuba'. And I seriously doubt if they'd object to publication of the photos elsewhere. It's been asked about at Google answers, but the answers aren't conclusive. So for now I'll just add the link you gave to the article. DirkvdM 08:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographer - so where are the photos? 

message: In December 1964, Che Guevara went to New York City to visit the UN. While there, he had little-known meetings with three associates of Robert Kennedy: newsman Tad Szulc, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and journalist Lisa Howard. A few weeks later, in January 1965, a Cuban exile supported by Robert Kennedy in 1963, Eloy Menoyo, was arrested while on a secret mission into Cuba.
This may be true (although it's uncited), but its placement immediately before "After April 1965 Guevara dropped out of public life and then vanished altogether," insinuates causality. Is there any basis for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone were to write a book speculating that Che Guevara had been an extra-terrestrial, would it be appropriate to include quotations from it in this article?  Aren't there certain standards of credibility that are supposed to be observed when writing for Wiki?  I could totally demolish, point by point, all of the bizarre and absolutely baseless speculations in the work that you are referring to, but consider that they are so absurd as to not merit the time this would require.  Polaris999 09:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insinuation 

message: According to some Eutimio Guerra was a major figure in the "Agrarian Reform" movement in the Sierra Maestra.  It is not known if he really was a traitor since with few exceptions we only have Guevara and Castro's versions of events.  However, it is wise to remember that  Guerra was only one of many people executed, or driven from the Sierra Maestra by Guevara to be killed by waiting Batista forces.  These bloody events had few witnesses and seemed to have involved complex struggles between those loyal to Frank Pais, the clandestine communists who fled the 1933 Soviet of the Sugar factory at Mabay, bandits loyal to Cresencio Perez, and an odd assortment of Spanish Republic loyalists.  There also seems to have been some CIA support of Castro.  xe xe El Jigüe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.240.227.15 (talk • contribs) 27 Nov 2005.
: The recent edits by User:205.240.227.15 look to me to consist mostly of uncited disparagement of Guevara (ditto the remark above) and insertion of POV phrasing. I don't have time to go through these one by one, but: 
:*"Granma was conveniently delayed": "conveniently" for whom?  
:*"However, at least some of these were rivals or inconvenient non-ideologues. For instance even much maligned Eutimio Guerra had been "an (sic) land reform organizer." Citation? 
:*"…apparently the only significant achievement of Guevara was to severely damage the agricultural environment…": is this an encyclopedia article or a prosecution summation before a jury? And that's uncited, too.
:There might be something worth having in some of this, so I am not unilaterally reverting at them moment, but I sure won't have a problem if someone else reverts.
:Jmabel | Talk 03:53, 28 
November 2005 (UTC)
Xe xe Jmabel it would seem that POV means things you disagree with. The citations are there you must have missed them. I have inserted them but here they are just for you Xe xe El Jigüe
On Utimio Guerra:
Morán Arce, Lucas 1980 La revolución cubana, 1953-1959: Una versión rebelde Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica; Ponce, Puerto Rico ISBN: B0000EDAW9 
Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografia De Fidel Castro Editorial Planeta, Mexico D.F ISBN: 8423336042, ISBN: 9707490012
* "it would seem that POV means things you disagree with": are you telling me that "conveniently" here is not POV? How about a wording like "apparently the only significant achievement of Guevara was to severely damage…". If that's your idea of neutrality, I wouldn't want to see how you write when you are trying to disparage someone. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eutimio Guerra

message: This article is tagged with . Could someone please make a statement—preferably a neutrally worded statement—of what factual claims in the article are currently disputed? And please keep in mind that POV issues are a separate matter, this tag is a claim that the article is factually false. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it has been ~two/three days, and no-one has made any such statement, I have removed the tag. — Daekharel 01:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I have corrected the Notes section many times over the past weeks, but from now on will leave that task to those who continuously wreak havoc upon it. Polaris999 07:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes Section has been corrupted yet again 

message: How did we get from "hero cult" to "hero reverence"? I suspect someone may have gotten a little carried away with Wikipedia:Words to avoid. "Cult" is certainly a word to avoid in describing a religion or an organization, but I believe this was its proper use. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, while cult would be the word used by much of the popular press to describe the kind of following this individual has (in the same certain popular movies have a "cult following"), but from a technical point of view reverence is a more correct term. It seems to me to be a case of the common word usage differing from true linguistical correctness. I'm not really sure which word should be used, what is the standard Wikipedia position on this issue (I have not been able to find one in my limited search)? - Canderra 06:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll raise the question at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. The policy seems to have nothing to say about this particular use. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hero reverence" 

message: I removed the dispute tag.  This article is very long.  It has been subject to extensive debate and consensus has been reached in many areas. If you wish to dispute the factual accuracy of the article please put the tag only on the section that you dispute and list a specific reason on the talk page.  Please do not readd without doing this. Savidan 03:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, probably more usefully in most cases, put  on the specific issue you are disputing. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute tag 

message: An anon IP added a  tag to the Che_Guevara#Disappearance from Cuba section of the article with this edit summary:
:this section contains innacurate information and rumor that was formulated by anti-Castro factions in an attempt to isolate Fidel Castro.
I removed the tag, but left this here for discussion. BCorr|Брайен 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that, while Che was primarily "on his own line", that line was considerably closer to the Chinese position in the Sino-Soviet dispute. Polaris999 23:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Really?? That is quite fascinating ... (Too bad no one told Carlos Rafael Rodriguez and his old PSP associates about that, they might have stopped persecuting Che had they only known ... ) Polaris999 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance from Cuba section 

message: *200px|thumb|Rodríguez with the captured Che Guevara<BR>(La Higuera, Bolivia - October 9, 1967)
*200px|thumb|The schoolhouse in La Higuera where Che Guevara was executed at 1:10 PM on October 9, 1967
In the last few days, with a lot of edits at cross-purposes, these two pictures seem to have been removed from the article without comment in any edit summary. I suspect that this was not a consensus decision and they should be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- please put them back -- they definitely add to the article. BCorr|Брайен 15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring -- Jmabel | Talk 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I can hardly think of anything less appropriate in a biographical article. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: On 21 November 2005, an unregistered user (70.19.159.81) inserted into the Che Guevara article several paragraphs based on and alluding to a recently published book written by Hartmann and Waldron.  It seemed to be the intention of this person to incorporate a mini-review of that book into this article, an action which I believe is in clear violation of the Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine", as promulgated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  Earlier today most of the paragraphs in question were transferred to the newly-created article entitled "Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution" by another editor, so I will not discuss them here. However, a fragment remains in this article and that fragment consists of the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the section "Disappearance from Cuba".  It appears to have been the intention of Hartmann and Waldron to imply that Che Guevara, rather than Rolando Cubela, was AMLASH.  The AMLASH matter has been thoroughly investigated by several Senate Committees and, in all cases, their conclusion has been that AMLASH was Rolando Cubela. Furthermore Cubela himself confessed and served a lengthy prison term in Cuba.  Until Hartmann and Waldron came up with their absurd hypothesis, no one had ever suggested that Che Guevara had been implicated in Project Mongoose or any other plot organized by the CIA and/or Robert Kennedy.  Since there is no evidence whatsoever to link Che to any such conspiracy, or any indication that he was involved in the activities of Eloy Menoyo, I am removing these two sentences from the article. Polaris999 02:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A serious problem with the "Disappearance from Cuba" section 

message: "Guevara was born in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of mixed Spanish, Basque (see The Song of Roland) and Irish descent." See The Song of Roland? Seemed like an odd cross-reference, but I did. The name Guevara does not appear there; what is the relevance supposed to be? I'm cutting it because it doesn't make sense; if there is relevance, someone needs to reword this in a way that makes that relevance clear. - Jmabel | Talk 08:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on which version of the Song of Roland one reads, there may or may not even be explicit mention of Basques (though of course the "Moors" and "Demons" who defeated Charlemagne were, in fact, Basques). But this is practically Easter Egg linking. The events of Roncesvalles have nothing to do with Che Guevara some 1,200 years later. One might as well link the Gernikako Arbola. This is an encyclopedia, not a phantasmogoria. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song of Roland? 

message: From the article, discussing The Motorcycle Diaries (film).
The details portrayed in this film, such as the size of the vehicle, are considered "legendary" rather than "accurate," and subject to much debate for instance Marcelo Gioffré › (English translation at ›) places the leper colony in Venezuela and cites fellow rebel Humberto Vázquez Viaña in stating that Guevara found relief from his asthma in the combat generated adrenalin.
Why is this here? As far as I can tell, this belongs in the article about the movie, not the article about Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article on the film. This is the article on the person. Why does discussion of inaccuracy in the film belong in the article on the person? We certainly don't go into the many inaccuracies in films about (for example) Napoleon or Van Gogh in our respective articles about them. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks, then, I'll move that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a documentary 

message: Concerning the dog that Che mistook for a puma and accidentally shot, I have never seen any reference other than the one posted here to its having been an Alsatian (German Shepherd).  In the English translations I have of the Motorcycle Diaries, no breed is mentioned.  Similarly, in the book, Mi hijo el Che, Ernesto Guevara Lynch includes what appears to be a verbatim extract from Che's diary about this incident and again the breed of the unfortunate dog is not mentioned.  So, I am interested to know what source, if any, (other than the amazon.co.uk reviewer cited) has provided this information? Polaris999 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for checking on this. Unfortunately, the amazon.co.uk website does not give an email address for that reviewer so it seems that there is no way to ask him directly ... Polaris999 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up:  I have researched this matter and have learned that the dog in question was a fox terrier, not an Alsatian (German Shepherd). I found this information in Alberto Granado's diary entry in which he recounts this incident in greater detail than the text published in either Mi hijo el Che or Motorcycle Diaries. How Ernesto mistook a fox terrier for a puma is quite puzzling ... Polaris999 07:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alsatian?

message: This is a copy of the note that I just posted on the Talk page of Aranda56:
Hello, Aranda56 -- I wanted to say thank you for noticing that the Notes section on the Che Guevara page had been completely re-done and for removing the "Cleanup" flag that someone had placed there a few days ago. The Notes section had gotten into in a somewhat disordered state because of conflicts between the simple hyperlink method and the ref/note style, both of which were unfortunately being used by various editors contributing on this page, but I worked for many hours these past couple of days to translate all of the notes into the new  style, and sincerely appreciate your noticing the improvement. -- Polaris999 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appreciation 

message: Stop reverting without discussion.  Just because you like Che and have a misguided view of him does not give you the right to delete cited and sourced information regarding views contrary to your own beliefs.  (Gibby 19:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibby has declared his intention to ignore this, and the points made to him by another user, and reinsert this material later.. He can't at the moment as he's blocked for edit-warring elsewhere. Worth keeping an eye on the article. Mattley (Chattley) 13:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean undue criticism? Mattley (Chattley) 18:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CRITICISM OF CHE