| Revision as of 16:30, 19 October 2009 editNil Einne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,164 edits →9 bullet wounds ?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:01, 21 October 2009 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 20.Next edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| {{calm talk|#FFCCCC}} | {{calm talk|#FFCCCC}} | ||
| {{todo|collapsed=yes}} | {{todo|collapsed=yes}} | ||
| == "Mass executioner" label in lead == | |||
| I need to bring by {{user|AVM}} up for discussion before this escalates into an edit war. | |||
| I believe putting "mass executioner" label on the lede section violates ], ], and ]. ]]/] 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It definitely violates ] if it's placed within the lead. Please see entry on Encyclopedia Britannica to note what a balanced lead should look like. I would also advice user {{user|AVM}} against possible ] violations on his edit summaries ] (]) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''I agree''' with both Nubiatech & Likeminas. AVM has already been reverted on this particular edit 3 times by 3 different editors. Setting aside the fact that AVM (]) is clearly not interested in the consensus of editors ''(evidenced by the fact that he/she would disregard the reverts of 3 different people)'' his/her ] usage of the term "mass executioner" in the lead and as a "profession" violates ] & ] ''(not to mention it is a hyperbolic term of opinion, not fact)''. It would be analogous to listing the euphemism "freedom fighter" in the first line, which you actually could source to a number of biographies, but would still be inappropriate from a pov standpoint. Moreover, AVM is trying to link the title of "executioner" to his/her where he/she unilaterally and without a source named Guevara as an official "executioner". AVM's of "bullshit!" also doesn't do much in the realm of ]. Lastly, what is clear is that none of the scholarly journals, or major biographies refer to Guevara primarily in such a manner ''(which would be our threshold for inclusion)''. ] (])RT 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Preliminary Response''' | |||
| :::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. | |||
| :::'''First.''' 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 () 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 ], or ], or ], 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 is what 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 ] 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'' viewpoints 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 who 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 it's not considered 'POV' '''''there''''', 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 ] rule, mentioned by ] in a prominent location in his user page, toward the objective of '''having Misplaced Pages tell the truth''', which doesn't appear to be among the most important objectives or goals of this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help and tell me about it). I will come back, promise. Regards, --] (]) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: '''AVM''', I’ve been around this article long enough to realize the potential futility in debating these issues with an impassioned individual whose personal hatred for Guevara, Fidel Castro, the Cuban Revolution etc ''(probably justified)'' leads them to embark on a near vendetta – and who will merely toss aside all contrary evidence that sways from their accepted or experienced narrative. Your past modus operandi of dismissing those you self-diagnose as or , doesn’t allow much room for debate nor intellectual corroboration towards a mutual understanding. You yourself have previously lamented in reference to the ] rules that they which unfortunately for someone with your personal views on these matters - is exactly what ] does. In the aforementioned instance you referred to ] as a "criminal, murderer, ruthless dictator, liar, thief, and rotten bastard." Now I would support your right to hold these views personally, but such language would not be an appropriate introduction for a neutral encyclopedia article. That is not a "leftist" conspiracy, but rather a fundamental policy of Misplaced Pages. Now I can even empathize with your situation as you have or the views you hold as being those of = <small>'''"a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the firing squad, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good."'''</small> Nonetheless, your personal experiences however tragic, are not only ], but irrelevant to constructing a neutral encyclopedia based on ], ], ] - ''(this would be just as true for the family member of a 9/11 victim that wanted to edit Bin Laden’s article with how they truly feel about him as well)''. Now AVM, as to the <u>specific</u> allegations of your response: | |||
| :::: '''--''' The "unilateral naming" that I was referring to, was in reference to your post on the ] article, where you listed Guevara as an "official" executioner without providing a source. | |||
| :::: '''--''' As for the ''Times Online'' article that you included in this article, I approved of its inclusion in the relevant Legacy section per appropriate weight. It would be ideal to utilize the actual book that the article is in reference to, but the article will do in light of not having the primary source. | |||
| :::: '''--''' Nobody here has declared Guevara their "hero", "idol", or "totem" ... please do not confuse following Misplaced Pages policy with relation to weight, as hagiographic hero worship. We are here to reflect the majority of reliable sources, regardless of what they mirror. | |||
| :::: '''--''' You have declared Guevara a "mass executioner" and described this as an indisputable "historical fact". However, this moniker is disputed and not found in the majority of sources. It is indisputable that Guevara personally shot individuals during wartime and a "revolution". Anderson notes several ''(around 10)'' documented examples of men who were shot personally by Guevara or on his command for a number of "crimes" in the Sierra including desertion, stealing rations, raping a peasant, being an informer ''(chivato)'' etc. Anderson also notes the 55 executions at La Cabana carried out in instances where Guevara had the final appellate say on whether to suspend or lessen the death sentences handed down by the revolutionary tribunals. As not to drag this response on forever, I will point you to a previous archived discussion '''---> ]'''. With all that said "mass executioner" is a judgment call and matter of opinion. For starters who defines "mass", more than one? Also "executioner" is a weighted term for the first line of an article. Is a U.S. Governor who refuses to commute a death sentence an "executioner"? What about a soldier who shoots deserters close range during war time? Or someone who orders others to shoot people, but doesn't do the "executing"? However, the article does note that Guevara "unhesitatingly shot defectors" "executed" individuals, and that certain people consider him an "ruthless executioner", "butcher" – these are all <u>acceptable</u> in the article, but not as a declarative statement in the opening remarks. For example, President ] ordered the nuclear incineration of 150,000 + Japanese. But it would be POV to open up his article by describing him as a "mass executioner", because none of the major sources do. Yet one can still mention in his article the facts surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb, or mention how some consider that a "war crime". To press the issue, you seem to be taking a "fact" and wanting it automatically in the first line irregardless of weight. Example: ] owned slaves ''(this is a fact)'', but starting off his article with = "Washington was the First President of the United States and a large slave holder" would be ]. No Encyclopedia would begin his entry that way, just like no other online Encyclopedias would begin an entry about Guevara with describing him primarily as a "mass executioner". Likeminas has provided the Britannica link above if interested for comparison. | |||
| :::: '''''' As for your issue with "respectable" terms, they are merely neutral ones that don’t lay judgment ''(see ])''. You view them as overly positive, because your personal view of Guevara is highly negative to begin with, and we’ve seen above how you would like Fidel Castro to be described. Of note a POV way to describe Guevara ''(which would be inappropriate and the paradoxically opposite of your own view)'' would be to say "Che Guevara was an Argentine brave freedom fighter, liberator of the poor, hero to those who strive for justice everywhere, and prophet against the brutality of Capitalism." Now of course such an introduction for an Encyclopedia would be absurd, but I am sure that if this article was the work of those who as you said view Che as their "totem", that is how it would read. | |||
| :::: '''''' To conclude '''AVM''', and I apologize for the length, the article presently mentions an array of unsavory aspects about Guevara, including that he executed people and shot them without hesitation. The issue seems to be your desire to describe him as a "mass executioner" in the opening of the lead, which has been unanimously rejected thus far in the past and present based on Wiki policy and the overall weight of material on the subject. ] (])RT 09:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: '''AVM''', regarding your statement above: <blockquote>"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''',"</blockquote> I want to bring to your attention the "]" policy, which clearly urges: "Comment on '''content''' not on the '''contributor'''". Describing my edits as you did above is clear violation of that policy. Keep in mind that: | |||
| :::::* I did not make any reference to your edit summary, neither did I express any offense taken on my part. | |||
| :::::* Tagging an edit as POV is not a personal attack, per the policy above. | |||
| :::::* In my previous 3 edits dealing with this article so far (2 reverts, and this talk section above) I never mentioned, critiqued, idolized, attributed, asserted, stipulated, deified, vilified, glorified, or touched the subject of the article or contributed a single word to the contents of the article. | |||
| :::::* All I am talking about so far are ], ], and ]; and I'd rather the discussion stays on topic and not get personal.]]/] 11:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (Outdent) '''AVM''', per '''''' which I am listing below: | |||
| {{quote|"I inserted the words "mass executioner" in the lead of the Che's article. One of my motives for doing it is that nowadays in Venezuela, as you probably are well aware of, that criminal is being hailed by ''chavistas'' as a hero and "Liberator", in the same ranks of ], which is not only preposterous but nauseating!"| ] to ] on July 18, 2009}} | |||
| I would remind you of the wiki policies ], ], and ]. Misplaced Pages is not the place for you to take out your political frustrations towards the regime in Venezuela. The above seems to be a text book example of a wrong motivation for wanting to alter a wikipedia article. ] (])RT 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Redthoreau''', your contribution above in this section was highly interesting and educational, and hence was very appreciated. I have accepted most of your reasoning and as a result have decided not to repeat my sins and leave this article alone. But this last paragraph of yours (on those three Misplaced Pages policies) is nothing else than a spanking. All I did was to try to involve a very notable editor, fluent in Spanish, and familiar with current Latin American affairs, into this small controversy. Whatever the motivation, 'altering' (that is, ''editing'') a Misplaced Pages article by adding true content is an absolutely legitimate endeavor, hence deserving respect. Which reminds me of an old itch, the scandalous contrast between '''fact''' and '''opinion''' in this encyclopedia. In Misplaced Pages ''opinions'' (sustained by references, namely, by other's opinions) seem to be valued better than ''facts'', an impression that is frequently reinforced by the language used in discussions like this one. I remind you of the small detail that you have still not addressed the '''Third''' item in my preliminary response: (''sic'')''"...the objective of '''having Misplaced Pages tell the truth''', which doesn't appear to be among the most important objectives or goals of this Encyclopedia (if it is, I'd appreciate anyone's help and tell me about it).''" As an aid in a presumably desirable quest for '''the truth''', I'd recommend the article by the notable writer ], besides, of course, some of his books, which in all likelihood you are already familiar with. | |||
| :Regards, --] (]) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages -for better or worse- is not ''that'' concerned with truth. | |||
| ::]] (]) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see. Then, very regrettably, Misplaced Pages is crippled from its birth, suffering from an inherent, incurable disease: its '''disregard for truth'''. Such policies theoretically allow the building of articles comprised mainly of false contents, simply by providing ample references that in turn are false, claiming they are "reliable sources". And that is just what might be happening right now to a sizable proportion of the 3-million-plus articles, making Misplaced Pages unreliable ''per se''. That's very saddening indeed. I just ''knew'' Misplaced Pages was too good to be true: now, evidently, it is true that it is not ''that'' good after all. It's more than disappointing, more than dismal: it's just nauseating. After more than 2,500 edits, I feel like quitting: I have stopped being a loyal believer. --] (]) 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry you feel that way but its been in our core policies all along. Anyway, "truth" isn't as clearcut as you seem to think - there are (at least) two sides to every story you know.] 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Lead neutrality=== | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| I think that much of neutrality concerns over the lead would we alleviated if it was noted in the fourth paragraph that "Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years" and that "he remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile community" (from Legacy section). ] ] 10:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem with the first phrase about "che inspired revolutions reinforcing etc" is that this is an opinion not a fact and it would have to be attributed to a very good source and it would have to be agreed that it is such a significant viewpoint that mentioning it in the lead does not give it undue weight. The problem with the second is that it rather goes without saying that he is hated among exiled cubans - I think we could find a better way to phrase this. And it would need a source.] 13:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sources for both claims are in the 'Legacy' section. ] ] 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: '''Vision Thing''', the problem becomes that if we bloat the lead with how many Cuban exiles feel negatively about him then we would also have to mention his positive portrayal on the island itself. If we include that he is a "butcher" to many in Miami, then per ] we have to mention how he is also "Saint Ernesto" in Bolivia and a "hometown hero" in parts of Argentina. The end result is a lead far too long per ] & ]. Right now the lead mentions that he reviewed the appeals and firing squads, unhesitatingly shot people, has been occasionally reviled, and is controversial. I would wager that these are all true, and satisfy the requirement of both sides on the matter per ] ''(remembering that are job is to represent the worldwide view of Che, not just the American one)''. Lastly, I would contend that we will probably never be able to produce an article that someone who loathes Che to the core would approve of ''(especially if we honored ])''. There is no amount of barbarity that we could portray that would satisfy those who view Che as nothing more than a cross between ], ], and ]. Likewise we will probably never be able to write an article that would satisfy an extreme admirer of Che, who has whitewashed all of his faults, believes that he never hurt a fly, and finds him more akin to ] than ]. With this in mind, I feel this article does a good job at reporting the occurrences without passing editorial judgment. Do you disagree? ] (])RT 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In the lead we have "As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a new man driven by moral rather than material incentives, Guevara evolved into a quintessential icon of leftist-inspired movements." and "He has been mostly venerated and occasionally reviled in a multitude of biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, songs, and films." In my opinion these two sentences are most problematic. First sentence talks why he is an icon of the left. We should also have one sentence that explains why he is despised/hated. Second sentence seems to be OR. ] ] 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: '''Vision Thing''', would your concerns be alleviated if we moved the "As a result ..." sentence down to the legacy section? As for the second sentence that is nearly indisputable ''(even amongst his detractors who despise the fact that it is so)''. The statement itself links to the article ] displaying the vast list of "biographies, memoirs, essays, documentaries, and films" dedicated to Guevara, while ] has a detailed list of the various songs of tribute. In fact there have been entire documentaries just about the aforementioned phenomenon itself ''(most recently "Chevolution" and "Personal Che")'' and entire books written about his dissemination across all of these mediums ''(namely "Che's Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image" by Michael Casey & "Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon" by Trisha Ziff)''. Even Che detractors have written extensively on how he has been widely praised in the majority of mediums ''(although they obviously wish this weren't the case, and belief it to be misguided)''. However, our only job here is to merely reflect the reality ''(i.e. that Che has been represented mostly positive and occasionally negative across a wide range of mediums)'' - not to comment on whether such positive coverage is justified, warranted, etc. --- My primary goal here is to allow Maunus to continue his/<s>her</s> GA review, which is being placed on hold while we discuss this matter – thus would your concern of the lead by alleviated if we move the first sentence down as I mention above, and keep the second one as is ? - ''(I can even source it to a number of books, but usually they request that we avoid over ref’ing the lead)''. Additionally, what are others views on the matter and this proposal? ] (])RT 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I hope I am a sufficiently reliable source to support the POV that I am male. One can also go overboard with neutrality.] 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ;)] 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you are against sentence that explains negative views, I agree with your proposal to move down "As a result ..." sentence. While I agree that it can't be disputed that Che Guevara has been a subject of a large number of works, there is no way to check that he has been mostly venerated in them. Such claim should be supported by a reliable source. Would "He has been a subject of…" work for you? ] ] 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: '''Vision Thing''', I have '''''' the article according to your suggestion and agreement to my proposal. I hope that you will now acknowledge that the lead is now sufficiently npov ''(although it will never be perfect with such a polarizing figure)'' to give Maunus the green light to continue his GA review. ] (])RT 06:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: '''Vision Thing''', after reading the results of my last edit I felt that now the "Notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors..." line was out of place without the previously removed “icon for his poetic invocations to class struggle etc" --- before the two of them sort of acted as a point/counter point to explain his legacy. As a result of my fear that the lead could now be criticized as overly critical ''(for mentioning his ruthlessness for shooting but not his adoration for his ideas)'' I decided to make one more '''''' where I went for more of a basic line on him being "revered" and "reviled" without getting into specifics of why ''(hence what the legacy section and separate article should be for)''. Hopefully this will prevent further debate on how many positive and negative attributes of his legacy to place in the lead. What are your thoughts? Thoughts of other editors? ] (])RT 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I made one more adjustment to the lead. It is not perfect, but I think that the lead looks pretty good now. ] ] 08:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: '''Vision''', I made one additional '''''' as well, with relation to your edit. I figure that both the Bay of Pigs & Missile Crisis should be included together from a historical point, and I added a ref to his role in training the militias of the former. If you believe it is at least "pretty good for now", then would it be appropriate to place a "resolved" tag on this subsection of the thread? To demonstrate that we worked it out. ] (])RT 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == "Spanish and Basque descendent" == | == "Spanish and Basque descendent" == | ||
| Line 179: | Line 93: | ||
| ::: I am marking this matter as resolved per above consensus. ] (])RT 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | ::: I am marking this matter as resolved per above consensus. ] (])RT 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Tania's role? == | |||
| '''Explain?''' Former Stasi operative Haydée Tamara Bunke Bider, better known by her nom de guerre "Tania", who had been installed as his primary agent in La Paz, was reportedly also working for the KGB and in several Western sources she is inferred to have ''unwittingly served Soviet interests by leading Bolivian authorities to Guevara's trail''. | |||
| I don't understand this. The Soviets might have not wanted political disturbances in South America, but they didn't (one thinks) want Che killed.--] (]) 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I believe the book - '''' could be of assistance not only for this brief section, but for her article as well. I have not yet read the book, but will certainly add it to my ''(unfortunately long)'' reading list :o). ] (])RT 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Andreasedge''', the text is presumably referring to the fact that following Guevara's 1965 speech in Algiers ''(where he denounced Soviet complacency in their own form of "Imperialism")'', many officials in the Soviet Union began to view Guevara as an ally of Mao's China in the ]. ] (])RT 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Christ-like == | == Christ-like == | ||
| Line 216: | Line 120: | ||
| == 9 bullet wounds ? == | == 9 bullet wounds ? == | ||
| Quote from this article: | Quote from this article: | ||
| {{quote|In all Guevara was shot nine times. This included five times in the legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and finally in the throat.}} | {{quote|In all Guevara was shot nine times. This included five times in the legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and finally in the throat.}} | ||
Revision as of 02:01, 21 October 2009
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Che Guevara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Che Guevara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
 | Che Guevara is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Che Guevara has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Communism Portal selected
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 8, 2004, October 8, 2005, October 8, 2006, and October 7, 2009. |
Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Che Guevara. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Che Guevara at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
|
(When an item is complete, just delete it)
|
"Spanish and Basque descendent"
Resolved
In the article it is said that: "Ernesto Guevara was born to Celia de la Serna and Ernesto Guevara Lynch on June 14, 1928 in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of Spanish, Basque and Irish descent."
I think it is redundant to say that is Spanish and Basque descendent, since the Basque country is a "Comunidad Autonoma" inside Spain. With only one of the terms (Spanish/Basque) would be clearer. Furthermore, the source of the reference is not given, so his basque ascendency is not demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.117.145.84 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- IP 163, your post raises several issues. Your average Basque citizen of Euskal Herria would not describe themselves or view themselves as "Spanish" (not to mention that the Basque country extends into France). The utilized ref points out that:
"Che's last name "Guevara" derives from the Castilianized form of the Basque "Gebara", a habitational name from the province of Álava."
- Thus Che's primary last name (Guevara) is Basque, his father's second last name (Lynch) is Irish and his mother's last name (de la Serna) is Spanish. Hence he is described as being of Spanish, Basque, and Irish descent. Is it your contention that “Basque” does not merit a separate distinction from Spanish, or are you disputing the fact that Guevara has any Basque ancestry? (a point acknowledged by Che's father himself) Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, keep both in; and I like your explanation.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
- I agree with Redthoreau, keep the Basque reference. Basque is not currently a nationality but a distinct ethnicity or cultural heritage. I would treat this as, for example, the Sean Connery entry, which calls him Scottish in the opening sentence despite Scotland being part of the United Kingdom.Yooper2bee (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree as well. You might as well say Frisians are Dutch if your going to call the Basque Spanish. --Mike Oosting (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am marking this matter as resolved per above consensus. Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Christ-like
I suggest deleting these words: "described by Almudevar of the San Francisco Chronicle as "Christ-like"". Reason: undue weight on a comment by one reporter. If there are other sources also calling him something similar, however, it might be OK to keep this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Any bearded man, beaten down (probably wounded), malnourished in some sort of serene state can be said to be "Christ-like", since this is the physical aspects most people extract from iconic representations o Christ, especially the most "popular" one of Christ on the cross. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but it's not clear to me whether you support or oppose deleting "Christ-like". In any case, what you express seems to be your own opinion; the article has to be based on material from published sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Copper & IP89, I have gone ahead and expanded the description with an additional reliable reference and position of a more notable individual. I hope this alleviates your initial concern Copper, if it does not - then please include your further concerns. Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the undue positive connotation of the term. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk)
- I agree it's a positive connotation. "Undue" sounds like an allusion to WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced it's undue in that sense. I think a lot of very positive material has been written about Che. Redthoreau would be able to comment more authoritatively on that. Now that an additional reference has been provided, I think it's OK to leave the reference to "Christ-like" in. It's a balance: we've left out the stuff about him hugging lepers, etc.; such other positive material adds, in a sense, to the weight of this: that is, we select a certain amount of positive information to be representative of all the positive information written about him. Similarly for the negative. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
To many "Marios"
Resolved
The executioner was Mario Terán, a half-drunken sergeant in the Bolivian army who had requested to shoot Che based on the fact that three of his friends named "Mario" from B Company,.. should be corrected or at least made clear that all three were named "Mario" and all form B Company... --89.152.177.195 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have fixed the above matter. Redthoreau (talk)RT 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent article
As someone who has read many books on Che Guevara, I must say that I am very impressed with this article. It is obvious that the editors who compiled it have researched the subject well. Bravo. 66.229.231.189 (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- +1 on the enthusiasm. Can't claim to be an expert on him, but have just read the entire article in one go. Well done, Wikipedians. --84.44.248.179 (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
9 bullet wounds ?
Quote from this article:
In all Guevara was shot nine times. This included five times in the legs, once in the right shoulder and arm, once in the chest, and finally in the throat.
Photos in Misplaced Pages show this is nonsense. Where is the evidence of the nine entry wounds? 75.19.40.173 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- IP 75, the statement is referenced, and the fact of multiple bullet wounds is noted in all biographies. You simply looking at a post-mortem photo on Misplaced Pages (nearly all of which were taken the day after upon public presentation in Vallegrande - after the body was cleaned, drained, embalmed etc) would be considered WP:OR and not relevant for Misplaced Pages. Do you have a published WP:RS that calls into question the amount of bullet wounds which we could investigate? Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Coverstory/execution
Forgive me if this is already addressed, I was just skimming thru the article and may have missed it. However while it's apparent from the article that the government planned to claim that Guevara had been killed in action during a clash with the Bolivian army it's not clear if this was the actual story they released and if it was, how the truth was uncovered. From the refs, it's apparent it's been known since 1970 at least Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- GA-Class South American military history articles
- South American military history task force articles
- GA-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- Top-importance biography (military) articles
- GA-Class biography (core) articles
- Core biography articles
- Top-importance biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Argentine articles
- Top-importance Argentine articles
- WikiProject Argentina articles
- GA-Class Cuba articles
- Top-importance Cuba articles
- WikiProject Cuba articles
- GA-Class Caribbean articles
- High-importance Caribbean articles
- WikiProject Caribbean articles
- GA-Class Basque articles
- Unknown-importance Basque articles
- All WikiProject Basque pages
- GA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists