Misplaced Pages

Talk:Che Guevara: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:13, 28 March 2008 editCoppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,262 edits →The lead section: Striking out some of my words.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:03, 31 December 2024 edit undoPrezbo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,533 edits →Category:Stalinism: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FAR}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|blp=no|listas=Guevara, Che|1=
{{ArticleHistory
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=top|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|core=yes}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Biography=yes|South-American=yes|Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject Argentina|topic=hist|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Basque}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Bolivia|importance=mid|Selected=yes}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=}}
}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=06:42, 3 Aug 2004 |action1date=06:42, 3 Aug 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Che Guevara |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2004#Che Guevara
|action1result=not promoted |action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=5172606


|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
Line 17: Line 30:
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Che Guevara/archive1 |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Che Guevara/archive1
|action3oldid=31662411 |action3oldid=31662411




|action4=GAN |action4=GAN
Line 25: Line 40:
|action5=FAC |action5=FAC
|action5date=11:45, 10 March 2006 |action5date=11:45, 10 March 2006
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Che Guevara |action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Che Guevara/archive1
|action5result=promoted |action5result=promoted
|action5oldid=43115765 |action5oldid=43115765


|action6=FAR
|maindate=June 18, 2006
|action6date=12:48, 23 April 2008
|currentstatus=FA
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1
}}
|action6result=removed
{{WikiProjectBanners
|action6oldid=207517874
|1={{WPMILHIST|class=FA |nested=yes}}
|2={{WPBiography|living=no|class=FA|priority=Top|core=yes|military-work-group=yes|nested=yes}}
|3={{WPArgentina|topic=hist|importance=Top|class=FA |nested=yes}}
|4={{WP Cuba|class=FA|importance=Top |nested=yes}}
|5={{WikiProject Caribbean|class=FA|importance=High |nested=yes}}
|6={{WikiProject Basque |nested=yes}}
}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Communism Portal selected|biography|small=yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=History|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}
<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: wide; padding: 5px;">
{{archive box|
],
],
],<br />
],
],
],<br />
],
],
],<br />
],
],
]<br>
]
]
]
<br /><br />
],<br />
],<br />
]<br /><br />
]
}}
</div>


| action7 = GAN
== ] ==
| action7date = 20:26, 28 August 2009
Discussions leading up to the ] are contained in ] ] (]) 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC) &
| action7link = Talk:Che Guevara/GA1
| action7result = listed
| action7oldid = 310600306


| currentstatus = FFA/GA
:I'm putting the dead link checker at the top of the page, as it may be needed often: ] (]) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
| topic = socsci


|maindate=June 18, 2006
Also putting these at the top for easy access:
*
*
] (]) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


|otd1date=2004-10-08|otd1oldid=6486377
:: '''Discussions from Feb 26, 2008 - March 20, 2008''' have been archived here ]. ] (] TR 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
|otd2date=2005-10-08|otd2oldid=25078099

|otd3date=2006-10-08|otd3oldid=79971650

|otd4date=2009-10-07|otd4oldid=318560887
==Article closed for 5 days==
|otd5date=2010-10-07|otd5oldid=389306797
I feel this was a good decision as the ongoing vandalism by ] was becoming hard to control. Hopefully in the next few days those editors who are interested in working collaboratively on the article, free of harassing other members, will make their suggestions known. I am looking forward to others input ... especially Polaris if he is still out there somewhere. ] (] TR 05:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|otd6date=2011-10-08|otd6oldid=454428297

|otd7date=2013-10-08|otd7oldid=576096069
:I disagree, this protection can only affect the article's Featured status as it directly conficts with the "stability" criteria. - ] 05:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|otd8date=2017-10-08|otd8oldid=804314895

|otd9date=2019-10-08|otd9oldid=920091451
(outdent) That is wonderful news that the article has been locked down. It is hopeless for FA anyway, as the FAR editors made clear when editors would not cooperate in removing the massive POV. Let's hope it stays that way for a while. Remember, last summer it was locked down for a month after ], who was concerned about the POV put the POV tag on the article. We never reached consensus to remove the POV tag and I do not know how it got removed.
|otd10date=2022-10-08|otd10oldid=1114803432
Since ] became editing the article in December 2006, he has mad more edits than all the other ediots put together since 2004, including those that brought it to FA status. I suggest that if ] intends to continue his massive editing, that he start interacting with editors on ] . He has ignored the FAR suggestions, considering them ridiculous. I have copied the direction several places so he could see the. I also encourage him
}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
to discuss changes on the article talk page and be responsive to editors on the article talk page. I have asked him to discotinue postings of article or political content on my talk page as well as Personal Attacks. Do no discuss article business on my talk page. It is inappropriate. Follow the rules and suggestions on ] and outlined multipe times there and on the article talk page if ] wishs editing to continue again on the article. Remember, you even reverted ] during FAR.
|maxarchivesize = 250K
] haa ignored our group planning and did not join in. The edits ] was making were against group consensus. ] reverted me yesterday without warning or discussing, replacing the whole intro that I had been working on not only without discussing but without any warning. This started today's ugly atmosphere which occurs everytime another editor trys to work on the article. ] will not work on the article because of the editing attitude of ] . Also, please stio the political attacks and rants on the article talk pages. Comment on content, not on editors. I believe we should discuss all of this on the article talk page, incluing the vaious plans that were abandoned because of ]'s participation. Many editors, like ] may have been driven off for could.
|counter = 22
Regards, ] (]) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 5
:If this dispute has yet to be resolved after five days, drop me a line on my talk, and I'll reprotect. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|algo = old(60d)
::Thanks! ] (]) 06:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Che Guevara/Archive %(counter)d

}}
:::I trust the ability of other editors to observe the situation and realize the numerous lies and falsehoods, ] constantly puts forth. His irrational behavior is truly astonishing, and I don't know if I have ever witnessed anything like it. The problems arise because he believes he is above repute and that he is a falsely an de-facto moderator of wikipedia who can place false warnings on others talk pages, and then when they copy and paste the same warning back to him, he seeks official loop holes to have them banned. Mattisse also believes that he can justifiably make numerous edits without discussion on the talk page, but then when anyone edits something he may have recently edited, he freaks out and enters into what can only be described as a "peculiar editor’s rage”, furiously leaving talk page warnings, messaging moderators, seeking 3RR violations etc. It leaves the editor in a curious position as the visage he puts forth makes it very clear that you can edit an article, as long as you never put anything down that he disagrees with or follow the same pattern of behavior he exhibits. That is not how Misplaced Pages should work ........ Anyone can look through the edits and see that I make numerous mentions of trying to honor his suggestions ''(the few times he gave them and didn’t refuse to be specific)'' and that I constantly made pleas for collaboration and not the dictatorial irrationality he was displaying. Just from looking through this page alone, anyone can see the "curious" and confusing atmosphere that ] presents as one second he will template that he is "LEAVING FOR GOOD" and for me not to contact him further, and an hour later he will return with more edits and warnings on my talk page in relation to the article. How can someone be expected to work collaboratively with someone who exhibits such a "bipolar" personality, and who never follows what he says? Mattisse has also started to show a penchant for following me around Misplaced Pages and placing tags on articles I make contributions on to annoy me. Not for an actual constructive purpose, but simply to cause frustration. --A moderator has already warned him of this on his talk page and hopefully he will thus discontinue this behavior.-- However implicit in this behavior is an example of his motivation, in where the desire ''(when it relates to me)'' is not for him to provide quality content ''(as I know he is more than capable of)'', but to continue a feud with me that I constantly have implored and pleaded with him to desist. Yes I have made a good deal of edits … but that was because my knowledge on the subject area, lead me to believe that the article was lacking in critical information and context. '''It is and will continue to be my desire to work collaboratively with any editor willing to work together in a respectful manner to create a better article, and I hope this can be achieved if and when the article is re-opened.''' ] (] TR 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

==In support of a month long lockdown ?==
I believe that actually a '''lockdown of a month''' ''(as has occurred in the past)'' may be needed ... especially considering the height of editor passions and intractability of current disputes. A “lengthy” cooling down period for all parties on the article may be in good order and would also allow those editors interested in future efforts, ample opportunity to discuss possible issues related to the current article. It would also provide time for other editors to contemplate joining on, to apply their knowledge and wikipedia know-how to the task at hand. Furthermore, for what it is worth, I believe that the article at present is beyond satisfactory ''(although yes possibly not up to FA status)'' but I fear that future flurries and barrages could be inevitable, without allowing editors time away from the daily “back and forth” and time to discuss the state of the article at present - free from ongoing alterations. ] (] TR 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

::What are other editors thoughts on this ? Thanks. ] (] TR 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I have asked ] to extend the lock for 7 more days to allow editors time to let their opinion be known. ] (] TR 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Fully protecting the article while we wait for others to casually come over here and participate in a discussion is not the way to go. It detracts from other users who want to edit the article in a non-controversial manner. The page protection is now expired, but if edit warring resumes, I will protect it again. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

== To: ] ==

*I am only answering this so you will not block me for not following your instructions to put an entry on the talk page.

*I am not the one who decides the POV. It is the FAR review that decides. I would give you a link to their comments, but you templated me for giving you the link before. You said that you would block me if I did it again.

*The FAR review committee has stated many times that the requests for lists of specific problems are unreasonable. Also, I am not able to spend the next week or so doing all that work when it is not my opinion but the FAR editors who decides.

*Please do not block me for this answer, as you have threatened, and this answer may fall under your blockable category.

*I would rather bow out than go through anymore of this.

*Please do not block me for this statement. These are my feelings.

*However, if you do block me as you have threatened to do, there is nothing I can do about it.

*I am too scared to continue. ] (]) 00:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
:*I've replied . --] (]) 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

==Disputed Neutrality==
'''The article has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag''' ''(which I disagree with, but nonetheless)'' ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality'''?''' Or represent a particular editor’s POV'''?''' And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Also the editor who applied the tag has not provided any opinion to justify that belief, and I believe that for the tag to remain ... there needs to be some rationale or suggestions. ] (] TR 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)



== The lead section ==
I became involved with this article as a result of seeing and becoming involved with a 3RR report at ] a few days ago. I've decided that at least for a period of time, I'm going to try to maintain a neutral position on all content disputes in this article: that is, I won't express an opinion for or against any change to the article. This is so that I can assist other editors in negotiating with each other and reaching compromises. At some later time I may decide to play a different role here.

Since there were some reverts involving the lead (introductory) section just before page protection, I'd like to encourage discussion of the wording of the lead section. Below, I'm trying to list almost all differences among the versions. I may have neglected some changes, and when more than one version is the same I usually only list one version that has a given wording.

Please put comments in the discussion sections. I'd like to see as many people as possible expressing opinions about which wordings you prefer and why. Please be specific and refer to reliable sources if possible. You may add more points to the lists if I missed some changes you would like to discuss.

Comparing the lead section in these versions:
See also ]
*(A) Featured version,
*(B) After main page appearance,
*(C) Zleitzen version:
*(D) version of intro <s>preferred by Mattisse: </s> Not my preferred version. It contains many isuses I objected to. Please do not include what you perceive as my prefereciences. ] (]) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
*(E) Redthoreau version of intro: (=current version of article)
*(F) A version around the time that there was talk page discussion between Mattisse and Polaris999 about the 1st paragraph.
--] (]) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be better if people would post comments immediately below each numbered point below, so I've removed the "discussion" headers.

I apologize, Mattisse. I should not have stated that you preferred something when you hadn't actually said so. I was half-aware of that when I posted it. Would it be OK if I list it as "version of intro reverted to by Mattisse"? Or would you prefer that it be called something else, such as "version of intro fix after Jimmy Wales put the POV tag on article"? You're welcome to supply another version. I encourage everyone to suggest other alternate wordings for the variations listed below, especially trying to compromise or trying to accomplish the goals of different versions at the same time.

I selected the "Zleitzen" version as a version edited by Zleitzen after which there were very few or no edits by Zleitzen other than reverts or small changes, and before which there were a number of substantive edits by Zleitzen over a period of several days. I don't claim that it's necessarily the best representation of Zleitzen's work, but it would take more investigation to find out.

<s>Although I'm going to avoid taking positions on content disputes, I may take positions on particular editing actions. In particular, if someone reverts something and if in my opinion the person doesn't seem to have given a reason for the revert as far as I'm aware, I may state on this talk page that I oppose the revert and I may even re-revert. I plan to do this regardless of whether I have a personal opinion about the merits of the material and regardless of what that opinion is. If someone states a reason covering a whole section or the whole article etc., I may or may not consider that as being a reason applying to a specific change to a specific sentence, depending on things like how vague the reason is, and whether someone else has given a reason to do the opposite.</s><small>23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)</small>

Although I've read this talk page and the FAR, I won't remember everything. I would appreciate it if people would put links or section titles or etc. in their edit summaries to particular sections of this talk page where they've explained the reasons for their edits.

I may also do some edits on my own, on things I expect to be non-controversial, including, for example, fixing grammatical errors. If you disagree with those edits, I encourage you to ask me to revert them. Note the "self-revert" userbox on my user page.

We can act as if it makes no difference whether the page is protected or not. Either way, we can get consensus on the talk page before making changes. If the page is protected, once we establish consensus for a change we can use the <nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki> template to request that an admin make the change. The page is currently not protected. 's edit changed the information in a template which has since been removed but did not change the protection status of the article. --] (]) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::'''Coppertwig''', I appreciate all of your work and commitment on helping improve the article. I am willing to happily follow all of your suggestions. '''Could you please add protection to the article''' however ... because without ... I believe that all of our/your hardwork could be in vain. ] (] TR 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Greetings, Redthoreau. I don't have the ability to protect pages, because I'm not an admin. You can post a request at ] to have the page protected. However, I don't know whether the request would be granted if there's no editwarring currently happening on the page. See the ] on protecting pages, and the instructions at the top of the requests page. --] (]) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I've taken quotes of editors from this talk page and posted them below where they seem to me to be relevant to discussing the various wordings listed. If you think I've taken your words out of context, I apologize in advance, and please feel free to delete, move, modify or strike out the quotes of yourself which I've put there (except that if someone has replied to them below, it might not be appropriate to delete etc. though striking out should be fine.) You're also free to add new comments. --] (]) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

===first paragraph (first two paragraphs in some versions) ===
I apologize that I haven't taken the time to copy the wikitext, so links etc. are not shown here. If wordings from here are used it would be best to go to the original wikitext for them. Please put comments and suggestions immediately after each numbered point.
*'''1.''' B says ''as well as other countries, including the Congo'' which is not in A. C has ''leader of Cuban and internationalist guerillas''.
*'''2.''' some versions say ''Guevara traveled rough''. E says ''Guevara would embark on a journey''.
*'''3.''' C says ''impoverished conditions'' instead of ''poverty''. D says ''(particularly the indigenous peasantry''. E says ''and be transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed.''
*'''4.''' D includes ''author'' in the first sentence.
:*''"no mention of him being an author ? He wrote more books during his lifetime than most authors."'' was said by
:*''"Perhaps there does need to be a separate section/article on Che as author..."'' was said by
:*''"I think that a summary section on him as author would be a good idea."'' was said by
*'''5.''' D says ''medical physician'' instead of ''medic''.
*'''6.''' D splits the first paragraph into two, after the first sentence.
*'''7.''' D says ''socio-economic inequalities were a result of capitalism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism''.
*'''8.''' D says ''by socialism'' before "through revolution".
*'''9.''' E includes ''His ubiquitous image would also later morph into a countercultural alpha-numeric symbol, utilized by youth and leftist-inspired-movements throughout the world.''
*'''10.''' E says ''insidious'' before "result of capitalism..." and ''World'' before "revolution".
*'''11.''' E includes ''This belief would lead him to become involved in Guatemala's social revolution under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, whose eventual CIA assisted overthrow, would solidify Guevara’s radical ideology.''

::'''Per 4, 10 & 11''' ... I believe E it is more accurate for several reasons. '''(1)''' It is imperative that he be mentioned as an ''"Author"'' I believe, as he wrote over 10 + books. ''"Author"'' is usually granted to someone who writes more than 2 ... thus I believe one can safely describe him as an author. Plus his legacy is encapsulated in his words and books, which sell thousands of copies each year throughout the world. '''(2)''' Also Guevara's ultimate stated goal was not revolution in Cuba, Bolivia etc ... but "World Revolution" against what he viewed as global Imperialism. '''From Guevara’s own words:''' {{quotation|''"The fundamental field of imperialist exploitation comprises the three underdeveloped continents: America, Asia, and Africa. Every country has also its own characteristics, but each continent, as a whole, also presents a certain unity."'' }}
::'''(3)''' Arbenz's overthrow with help of the CIA, I would contend is essential because that in my mind is the "watershed" moment in Guevara's life. Until then he was a vagabond traveler, medic, poet, and "Marxist in theory" but not reality. It was his outrage of what he perceived as the CIA toppling Arbenz at the behest of United Fruit and Business interests (which he became disgusted with while personally touring United Fruit holdings) that solidified his view that the US was a hegemonic power that needed to be revolted against with force. If Arbenz is never overthrown, then I believe Guevara would have probably lived out the rest of his days as a wayward traveler (which I think his history bears out). Thus not to include that in the intro to me is a glaring omission. '''From Guevara’s own words:''' {{quotation|''“I was in Guatemala at the time, the Guatemala of Arbenz—and I had begun to make some notes to guide the conduct of the revolutionary doctor. I began to investigate what was needed to be a revolutionary doctor. However, aggression broke out, the aggression unleashed by the United Fruit Company, the U.S. Department of State, John Foster Dulles—in reality the same thing—and their puppet, called Castillo Armas. The aggression was successful, since the people had not achieved the level of maturity of the Cuban people of today. One fine day, a day like any other, I took the road of exile, or at least, I took the road of flight from Guatemala, since that was not my country.”'' }}
::] (] TR 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

===second paragraph (third and fourth paragraphs in some version(s)) ===
I'm starting the numbering at 101, not because there are more than 100 edits to consider, but in order to allow room to add more numbers in the previous section if necessary.
*'''101.''' A says ''Guevara died at the hands of the Bolivian Army in La Higuera near Vallegrande on 9 October 1967. Participants in and witnesses to the events of his final hours testify that his captors summarily executed him, perhaps to avoid a public trial followed by imprisonment in Bolivia.'' B is similar but has ''executed him without trial.'' C says more briefly, ''Guevara was summarily executed by the Bolivian Army, in the town of La Higuera near Vallegrande on 9 October 1967.'' E says very briefly, ''where he was captured with help of the CIA and executed.''
:*''"''“Guevara Died at the hands of the Bolivian army”'' ... what kind of wording is that ? Were they cradling his head as he passed away from old age ?"'' was said by
:*''"I think you are confusing "died in the arms of" with "died at the hands of". The wording is correct."'' was said by
*'''102.''' D divides the second paragraph into two.
*'''103.''' D says ''Later while in Mexico in 1956'' instead of ''Some time later''.
*'''104.''' D says ''from the regime of the U.S. supported Cuban dictator General Fulgencio Batista ''
*'''105.''' D says ''For a few months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", as understood under revolutionary theory, overseeing the public "revolutionary tribunals" and executions of between 55 and a few hundred suspected war criminals associated with the previous regime. For his part Jon Lee Anderson author of the biography 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life' has stated that: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason, rape, torture, or murder." ''
:*''"Even though this sentence has a citation from Anderson on PBS I think it should go: "Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson has contended that through his five years of research that he was unable to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent." <br/>My reason is that I don't know what "an innocent" means in war. Anderson says: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder." Are we to believe there were trials and such? Did not he execute people for the same reasons he was executed? We do have to reduce the POV of this article. ..."'' was said by (paragraph break rendered in wikitext by Coppertwig)
:*''"re the "innocents" question: I can think of many reasons why JLA might not have been able to find "a single credible source" that have nothing at all to do with whether the individuals executed were in fact innocent or not. ..."'' was said by
:*''"I would like to remove the sentence because, even though Anderson said it, I don't think it applies to the situation and is needlessly pro-Guevara. I don't think we know one way or the other. And "innocents" in a revolutionary situation depends on what side you are on."'' was said by
:*''"Could be removed as far as I am concerned ..."'' was said by

*'''106.''' D says ''touring the world and meeting with leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism''
*'''107.''' E says ''and be promoted to commander in'' (26 of July movement)
*'''108.''' E says ''playing a pivotal role in the successful''
*'''109.''' E says ''US backed'' instead of ''US supported'' Cuban dictator
*'''110.''' E says ''After the Cuban revolution, Guevara would serve in many prominent governmental positions including President of the National Bank and “supreme prosecutor” over the revolutionary tribunals and executions of suspected war criminals from the previous regime.''
*'''111.''' E says ''he was also a prolific author''
*'''112.''' E says ''to incite'' instead of ''to foment''

===Last part of lead===
*'''201.''' B says ''Somewhat ironically, this photo of the Marxist icon has also spawned a capitalist merchandising machine.''
*'''202.''' The last two paragraphs of D have extensive discussion of his legacy: re writings by and about him; quotes by Jonathan Green and Ariel Dorfman, etc.
:*''"...It just needs "mentions" of the general effect. So much of the legacy, t-shirts, mugs, has nothing to do with Che. The subarticle is freer to analysis the commercialization etc of Che and other angles. ..."'' was said by (though perhaps talking about the legacy section of the article, not the lead) ] (]) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''203.''' E says ''Both notorious for his disciplined brutality and revered for his unwavering dedication to his revolutionary doctrines,''
*'''204.''' E has a paragraph about his legacy, different from the version in D, including ''romantic visage''.

:::As the editor who last compiled it, '''I favor version E''', and consider it to be the most accurate and encompassing. As for issues related to proportionality to the rest of the article, I feel that those issues should not be addressed, until we reach consensus on the rest of the article, as proportions may be ever evolving. I am also willing to address anyones concerns on the specific rationale for the wording, and provide citations to back up all/any of the leads claims. ] (] TR 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

==Minor Grammatical edits==
I have made a few minor grammatical edits and wording alterations to the article. However I will not address "Content" without first discussing or allowing other editors a chance to review the content, here on the talk page. It is my hope that other editors will follow this same course of action, as to prevent inevitable edit warring, and a future page lockdown. ] (] TR 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:I support the procedure of discussing first before editing. I agree that this doesn't have to apply to non-controversial edits such as correcting grammar -- realizing that if someone does object to those edits, they then become controversial. I might discuss even grammatical changes before editing, but don't expect others to do so.
:Thank you for your comment about version E above, Redthoreau. I think it would be helpful if you would get more specific, and put comments under some of the numbered points above commenting on specific phrases that differ between the sections. For example, when you say that E is more accurate, could you back that up with references to the sources? ] (])

::Sure ... doing so up above after each differentiation. ] (] TR 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:Mattisse, would you forgive me for having mistakenly marked a version as being preferred by you? It would be helpful if you would also add some comments to the section about the lead above, though of course you don't have to. --] (]) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:A minor grammatical edit: I'd like to change the punctuation in ''"Ernesto Guevara de la Serna was born on ], ] in ], ]. The eldest of five children in a family of mixed ] and ] descent; both his father and mother were of ] ancestry.{{cref|Basque}}"'' I'd like to change the punctuation so that the part ''"The eldest ... descent"'' becomes part of the first sentence rather than of the second. The reason is that, dangling, one can't find a noun for the adjective "eldest" to modify. :-) --] (]) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:I suggest adding an apostrophe in ''"by trips end"'' to make ''"by trip's end"''.
:I hope you don't mind, Redthoreau, if I comment on some of the grammatical changes you've made. I'm intending to avoid getting into content disputes, so there are merely suggestions. ] (])

::I don't mind at all ... you have shown yourself to be more than fair, and I appreciate your fair handed objectivity in relation to these matters. ] (] TR 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:Re ''"which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "]", or "mate" are employed colloquially now in various English-speaking countries."'' The way you changed "are" to "and" is fine. Another alternative is to leave it as "are", and change "as" to "that". I think the semicolon before "and" should be a comma, and that possibly some editors would argue that there should be no punctuation before "and" (I'm not sure about that).
:Re ''"a shipment of ] infantry and light artillery weapons were sent"'': I suggest keeping the singular "was", since "shipment" is singular.
:Re changing ''"most of the 82 men died or were executed"'' to ''"most of the 82 men were killed or executed"'': This seems to me to be of a similar nature to the changes which have been found to be controversial in this article, and to change the meaning significantly. Therefore, would you please provide a reason, Redthoreau, for making this change? Similarly for deleting ''"formerly ], later ] and"''. ] (])

:: '''To answer your Q:''' The reason for the first change was for more specificity and accuracy. I believe that as it read previously, the vague wording left open the possibility that the men simply ''"died"'' from sickness, the seas, old age etc. When someone is killed from a natural disaster or illness, the common wording is ''"died"'' ... however when someone is shot in combat (as these men were, the common word is ''"killed"''). For example ... i.e. JFK didn't ''“die”'' while driving through Dallas ... he was ''"killed”'' while driving through Dallas etc. Also the "executed" is not a matter of debate, as it is universally accepted that Batista's forces had a "no prisoner" policy in relation to the attacking rebels. As for deleting the former chronological names for the DRC, that was simply a matter of streamlining content. I found it unnecessary to list all of the nation’s former names, and believe the former and current one sufficed. For instance in mentioning a historical figure of a certain nation, it isn't necessary to list all of the chronological names that country has had up to the present. The contemporary one at the time, followed by the present day one I believe suffices. As always I am open to debate on any of my comments, and respect your opinion. ] (] TR 14:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:Re ''"Following the coup, he again volunteered to fight but soon after Arbenz took refuge in the Mexican Embassy and told his foreign supporters to leave the country."'' I would insert commas before and after "but soon after", or at least after "fight", to make it easier to parse the sentence. As it is now, it looks as if "soon after Arbenz took refuge" is a phrase, but the rest of the sentence won't parse if that's treated as a phrase.
:Re ''"<nowiki>After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine ] where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to ].<ref>Taibo, Paco Ignacio II. ''Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che'', p. 74.</ref></nowiki>"'' I would put a comma after "consulate". Also, I see ref tags here. Are there supposed to be any ref tags in this article? Does this need to be converted to a Harvard citation? I'd like to do that, as I need to learn how: I'm only familiar with ref tags. Please confirm that the ref tags are not supposed to be there and then I'll figure out how to do the Harvard citation. Do we use ref tags for anything in this article? In this case, it seems to be a name of a book, so perhaps it's not supposed to be in ref tags.
:Re ''"<nowiki>Although he planned to be the group's medic, Guevara participated in the military training with the members of the Movement, and at the end of the course, was called "the best guerrilla of them all" by their instructor, Colonel ].<ref name=anderson2>{{Citation| last =Anderson| first =Jon Lee| year =1997
| title =Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life| place =New York| publisher =Grove Press| page = 194| isbn =0-8021-1600-0
}}.</ref></nowiki>"'' I would add a comma after "and". If that's objected to, I would remove the comma after "course". Again, here's a ref tag, and even a citation template; I suppose these are supposed to be converted to the other citation system. (Again, please confirm and then I'll do it.) -- ] (]) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

::'''Coppertwig''', I appreciate your efforts and am more than happy to address any questions you have in relation to my comments. As for your grammatical suggestions, I believe that all of them are justifiable and would support you changing any/all of them, if you wish. I will reply to each independent issue separately up above. ] (] TR 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much, Redthoreau. I hope I'm not taking up too much space on this talk page with minor grammatical points, but I'd like to be careful not to make edits that might lead to conflict. Later when we've maintained calm, collaborative interaction for a while I may decide to be slightly bolder. By the way, I'd like people to know that besides my self-revert policy I'm also a member of the Harmonious Editing Club (see userboxes on my userpage) which means that I voluntarily restrict myself to the 1RR: one revert per page per 24 hours. With regards to self-reverting, though, I'd like to mention that if I re-revert a revert and someone asks me to self-revert that, I probably won't. Other edits I would usually self-revert if asked, at least while I'm maintaining a neutral position as I am now.
:::Thank you for explaining the reasons for those edits. I should perhaps have made clear that I wasn't opposing the content of the edits. I was only questioning the procedure, that is, whether edits are made without discussion or explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to reply with those explanations.
:::I've posted a message to ] and ] on ].
:::More grammatical (etc.) fixes: ''"an assault on Cuba from Mexico via the Granma an old, leaky cabin cruiser. "'' I suggest a comma after "Granma".
:::''"most of the 82 men were killed or executed upon capture."'' This sounds as if it might mean "were either killed upon capture or executed upon capture", which doesn't make sense. I suggest changing it to ''"most of the 82 men were either killed in the attack or executed upon capture."''
:::''"as a bedraggled fighting force deep into the Sierra Maestra mountains"'' I would change "into" to "in".
:::''"With Castro and his men withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether he was alive or dead "'' Here, I suppose "he" means Castro, but at first glance (and confusing it with another time period) I wondered whether it meant Guevara. I suggest replacing "he" with "Castro"; but there may be a way to re-word the sentence so that Castro doesn't appear twice. Something like ''"With the group withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether Castro was alive or dead."''
:::''"Che considered this "the most painful days of the war.""'' I suggest "these" insted of "this", since "days" is plural. Something more specific could perhaps be used instead, such as ''"those months"'' or ''"the time period following that interview"''.
:::''"Back in their camp they learn of the murder of Frank Paiz"'': I suggest past tense "learned" to match the tense of the rest of the paragraph.
:::''"Ley de la Sierra"'': This appears only as a superscript, although it's part of the sentence. I suggest repeating it in normal-sized text before the superscript.
:::''"The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime, was done under the hope of preventing the people themselves from taking justice into their own hands, as happened during the anti-Machado rebellion, which threw the society into chaos."'' I suggest deleting the comma after "regime" in order to avoid separating subject and verb with a comma. ''"The justification...was done under"'' doesn't seem to make sense. I suggest deleting ''"done under"''. Another possibility would be to delete ''"the justification for"''.
:::''"show down "'': Change to one word, ''"showdown"''.
:::''"and President of the National Bank of Cuba."'': period should be a comma.
:::''"To display this Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane as did Castro."'' I suggest a comma after ''"this"'' and a comma after ''"cane"''.
:::First sentence of "Disappearance from Cuba": I suggest, per ], not mentioning the link to the taped interview there, but only listing it in an "External links" section at the end of the article.
:::Second sentence: Note that there are several "citation needed" tags. Maybe one of you could find references for these things in your books. I just tried to find it in my book. I didn't even find the bit about him speaking at the UN in New York. Instead, I found it saying that in March 1964 he represented Cuba in Geneva at the first world conference on commerce and development. (p. 339).
:::''"...and then vanished altogether, his whereabouts were a great mystery..."'':I suggest changing the comma to a period to make this two sentences, now it's a comma splice :-) --] (]) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

::::'''I agree with all of the above.''' Nice work and excellent suggestions. ] (] TR 04:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you very much. I'll put them in later, and I'll do some work on the citation formatting. --] (]) 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

== Perspective on FAR - Please do not move again==

], if you are sincerely wishing to help improve the article so it can have the POV tag removed and pass FAR, please read ]. These are the complaints that must be addressed. My reading of the complaints is that the massive POV is the major complaint and until that is addressed, worrying about commas etc. is not going to address FAR concerns. It is noted in the FAR that the POV increased substantially in January 2008. The article was started in 04/15/2002.

*
*First edit '''04/15/2002'''
*Total edits: '''8573'''
*Total edits beginning 2008: '''1933''' (20% of total article edits since 04/15/2002)

Since 04/15/2002 the edits break down 8573 (combining major and minor edits)

;---Breakdown of edits---

*] has made '''2,453''' edits.
:First edit '''09/03/05'''
:Last edit 03/02/2008

*] has made '''640''' edits
:First edit: '''12/09/2007'''
:Last edit: 03/26/2008

*] has made '''219''' edits.
:First edit: '''7/12/07'''
:Last edit: 03/20/2008

*] has made '''180''' edits.
:First edit '''08/06/06'''
:Last edit 07/19/07 (he has left wikipedia)

Until the POV situation is dealt with, good editors will not be willing to work on the article. There was discussion in FAR to revert the article to one of the earlier versions as the POV was considered so ingrained in the article that it would be easier to start with a cleaner, shorter version. The following is copied from the FAR review. Please keep in mind that ] is a neutral editor. It is her job to monitor the FAR.
;----Copied from FAR page----

This article reached FA status in the spring of 2006. Concerns now include ], ], ], and ]. In short, the article may no longer met ]. Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. ] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:Please follow the instructions at the top of ] to notify all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. ] (]) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

'''Note''': long-standing concerns on the talk page about NPOV are more serious than the other issues raised above. ] (]) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

per Dr pda prose size script:
:File size: 143 kB
:Prose size (HTML): 61 kB
:References (HTML): 24 kB
:Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)
:References (text only): 7 kB
:Images: 122 kB

(Feb 23)
:File size: 385 kB
:Prose size (HTML): 113 kB
:References (HTML): 108 kB
:Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11599 words)
:References (text only): 42 kB
:Images: 348 kB

The article is better than 50% larger than the article that was promoted in 2006; it's not unlikely that POV has crept in. ] (]) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted. There are ] issues, ] issues, and ] just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet ]. In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose ] (example: Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed. to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.) This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives. ] (]) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely, ] (]) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

::: '''(1)''' The article's size has drastically been reduced since those comments, thus I believe they are no longer relevant in reference to the article being too large. '''(2)''' The article itself has been drastically edited, cut down, streamlined (a great deal by yourself and to your credit Mattisse) since those comments, thus I believe they may no longer refer to the article in its current state. '''(3)''' More importantly, Much of the POV was in the "Legacy" section which now no longer exists as part of the article. I believe that the article is written from a very neutral stand at present, and no editor has yet to point out a specific instance of POV (which is subjective in nature) that we can discuss, and possibly correct. '''(4)''' I feel that an evaluation of the current article is the only thing that would be helpful ... not comments of an article that bears little resemblance to the one, with which those comments refer. '''(5)''' Me and Coppertwig (above) and hopefully more editors in the future, are painstakingly going through each sentence and section to provide/investigate their justification. I would invite you to participate Mattisse. '''(6)''' I would add the classic quip in relation to out of context statistics: ''"The average human has one breast and one testicle."'' ;o) ] (] TR 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Please do not move my comments again to suit your needs. Article size was one issue that removing POV helped reduce drastically. The rest of the comments still apply. POV is in the eye of the beholder. You may think taking it out of the legacy section removed them, but others may not agree. Also the other comment about links at the bottom are still a problem if the article is to retain it's FA. Perhaps you do not want it to? Sincerely, ] (]) 16:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Mattisse, It was not moved to ''"suit my needs"''. It was moved to retain chronological relevance. Almost all the comments in the material you posted are in reference to the article on Feb 23 ... that resembles very little of the article today ''(much to your credit BTW)''. Thus the comments are misleading. '''(1)''' The size has been drastically reduced to an acceptable level. '''(2)''' Yes, POV is subjective, which is why Coppertwig is allowing us to go through each section and provide rationale for disputes. You should take part in that if interested, instead of preoccupying yourself with article statistics. I know you have valuable experience to offer, and I wish you would utilize it in an collaborative, non combative way. '''(3)''' If you believe that POV exists ... then by all means share with us, so we can address which statements you feel are POV. You have yet do it, yet continue to espouse the POV accusation. '''(4)''' Please refrain from subtle insults or insinuations of my intention. I have nothing to be gained by the article losing its FA status. However the FA status is not the end all for the article. The rationale for wikipedia is to create the best most accurate article possible, and if the powers that be decide it meets FA status, then that is a different story. '''(5)''' An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful ''(especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.)'' '''(6)''' I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved final product … and please refrain from a combative tone, which is not constructive. ] (] TR 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Moreover, the reference to the article links at the bottom was made when the bottom of the article featured 4 sections of around 40 external links. That is not the case now. As it has been reduced by probably 80 %. ] (] TR 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
==Feature article status for ]==
On the Feature Article Review page there is the following statement:

:The featured article director, ], or his delegates ] and ], determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

] has made the following comment on the ] FAR. Marskell's last directions regarding the article were the following:

:---'''FARC commentary'''---


== Views in Argentina ==
:''Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2).'' ] 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I travelled extensively in Argentina and the views on Guevara were unanimous; he is rarely mentioned there and is certainly not a source of pride. Many I met described him as a "psychopath" who enjoyed killing people. He apparently told his father that he "enjoyed the smell of cordite and blood" after he had shot someone through the head.
Redthoreu, since you are running things here, you should be the one to answer ] on the ]. All editors can give ideas on the article talk page, but FAR prefers, for the sake of clarity, that only one editor take on the role of responding to their comments and suggestions and the comments and suggestions other reviewers make on ]. Sincerely, ] (]) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this is worth extra exploration. ] (]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


:It definitely isn't, I for one know plenty of Argentinians that are in awe of Guevara. Hearsay is not worth being mentioned on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
::I don't consider myself ''"running anything"'' as all I want to be is an equal collaborative partner ... but I did address several issues and make a request for current critiques on the FA review . Hopefully this will let us all know where we stand. ] (] TR 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
::Che was a psychopath who enjoyed killing people. He was also a homophobic and racist who hated black people. This is not hearsay. He publicly executed innocent Cubans by gunshot in front of many witnesses as a warning to anyone who tried to oppose their new government. ] (]) 11:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
<s>Striking out material from block evader.</s> ] (]) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Grandpallama}} Although I agree that the heresay is irrelevant to our article, I looked at the IP and saw no evidence of block evasion. Is there a link that shows it? If so, it would be helpful if that is mentioned on the IP's talk page in case that editor continues making edits. --] (]) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::], the editor is unlikely to show up with this particular IP again, as it's not static. That said, it's been pointed out to me that the age of the edit is such that I'm probably causing confusion more than helping (which makes sense); I only noticed today that he'd become active again for a while last year and was clearly overzealous ]. I've reverted my strikethrough. ] (]) 06:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay. --] (]) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


== Che was a mass murderer ==
*(outdent) Well someone has to do it. That is how the FAR collaboration works. Right now the consensus on FAR is that the article has massive problems and no one has responded to ]'s suggestions. He is the one who makes the decision. You have commented on the FAR review page, but you have posted nothing that has addressed their concerns. Just disagreeing with them is not enough. You have to actively show that you are addressing their concerns by listing what you are doing to address them. If no one responds the article will be automatically lose its Misplaced Pages:Feature Article status as it is no longer one of Misplaced Pages's best articles. If there is some response and the consensus is that the article is salvageable, the decision would more likely be to move on to Stage Two where there will be additional time, and hopefully some willing editors, to help the article fix its problems and retain it's Star (right hand corner) designating it as a Feature Article, one of Misplaced Pages's best. See ]. Someone needs to respond. You are the only editor left. What do you suggest? Just lose the star that ] and ] worked so hard to receive? Sincerely, ] (]) 21:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Please add that Che Guevara was a mass murderer in the first sentence of this article. He should be put in the same category as Hitler. the sentence should read as follows:
== ==Stats placed aside == moved here from my talk page to article talk page ==


was an Argentine ] Mass Murderer, physician, author, ] leader, diplomat, and ]. ] (]) 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page) Article discussion should not be posted on a user's talk pages.


:When was he convicted of being a mass murderer? ] (]) 05:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Coppertwig is willing to provide a process for all editors to go through each section and provide their suggestions, rationale for dispute, etc. If you wish to be a part of that, then please participate and allow (the valuable experience I know you have) to be utilized. An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful (especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.) I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved article. ] (] TR 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
::in Cuba he lined up innocent people against a wall “pared” and executed them without a trial for the public to witness. My Cuban family witnessed these executions and knew people who disappeared. He forced at gunpoint the removal of families from their homes. The only way to enforce socialism is to take away everything the people own by execution and physical violence. No one will willingly give the government their possessions. What I stated are facts. ] (]) 11:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some reliable sources here. Facts aren't hard to find in reliable sources. ] (]) 12:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Lots of sources exist, but they're very easy for you to ignore. ] (]) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you have sources, ]. ] (]) 00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Alvaro Vargas LLosa, ''The Killing Machine; Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand" (Independent Insitiute:July 11, 2005, https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1535)
::::::Guillermina Stutter Schneider. "Che Was a Racist, Homophobe, and Mass Murderer" (Human Progress: December 15, 2017, https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/)
::::::Troy J. Sacquety, "Che Guevara: A False Idol for Revolutionaries" (U.S Army Special Forces Command History Office: 2008, https://arsof-history.org/articles/v4n4_false_idol_page_1.html#fn:2)
::::::These three sources support the idea that Che was ruthless, brutal, and guilty of more than enough human rights violations to earn multiple in-depth paragraphs for this article.
::::::] (]) 23:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Semantic Error ==
:Please do not make article comments on my talk page. Anything that pertains to this article should be posted here. Therefore, I am moving comments here where they belong.


<ref></ref>{{Edit semi-protected|Che Guevara|answered=yes}}
;---My response---
Please change "Cause of death Execution by shooting" to
:Perhaps you could ask Coppertwig to explain to me where I should putting the comments that nothing is considered "dealt with" until it is posted on ]. For an example of how a FAR review on a contentious issues proceed, please see ], or ] or look through ] now ] now being reviewed through FAR. Whether a specific complaint has been remedied is decided on the FAR comment pages primarily by consensus. The article talk pages are for editors to discuss whatever they want, for example, considerations too trivial to post on ]. If enough '''Support''' comments are not made there, the article will fail.
"Cause of death Elimination by shooting"


Che Guevara's capture and immediate execution without a legal trial would be more accurately described as an extrajudicial killing which is considered a form of murder. This differs from a lawful execution which typically involves a formal trial. ] (]) 05:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
:I reposted the stats because until FAR says the complaints are dealt with, this talk page should be furthering the goal of getting a favorable response on ]. Until their is a consensus there that the problem is fixed, the problem should not be consider as fixed. Redthoreau, your opinion that a problem is fixed is not enough to consider it fixed.
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I replaced it with ] (per what's covered in the article's body). ] (]) 15:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
::Can you also take care of the "Battles/wars" section, where he was labeled to be executed after a conviction. ] (]) 10:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


== Interview with Tucker Carlson - Ex-CIA Agent Felix Rodriguez on Che Guevara death ==
Sincerely, ] (]) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ex-CIA Agent on Capturing Che Guevara, Who Truly Killed JFK, and Election Predictions


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwohQJrJeo8&ab_channel=TuckerCarlson


] was executed in 1967 in a remote Bolivian village. One of the last people to speak to him alive was CIA officer ]. Here’s his story.
==My request from the FA review ==
To the myriad of editors who have commented on this page, and who have made suggestions, '''I am sending out a request to have you all view the newest version of the article ''(as of March 27 - One month after the FAR review into effect)'' ... and please update your critiques, suggestions, criticisms, etc.''' The article has had considerable modifications, been drastically reduced in size, gone through extensive grammatical and word editing, and had a good deal of "excess" content removed, etc over the last month ''(thanks to the hard work of several editors)''. When comparing the two versions, the improvement I believe is clear from when the review went into effect. To view the difference ... ----vs---- = when the Review was ordered. For comparison also see the version which originally received FA status ---> . It would be my contention that the current version at least exceeds the quality of the original FA version, but it is the collective view that matters here. So please make your opinion known as it is appreciated. ] (] TR 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Felix Rodriguez worked for the CIA until 1976.
===Placed to update critiques as of March 27 (one month later)===
Since the article has been altered so drastically since the original review ... I am '''creating this new section to voice those concerns about the current March 27th version''' of the article. Thank you and please feel free to make any and all suggestions. Also specifics are appreciated as they will allow editors a chance to rectify your specific concern. ] (] TR 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 16:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
==Justify continuation of and tags here==
Since considerable edits and alterations have been made to the article in the past month since the institution of both of these tags, I feel it is prudent to '''re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns''' in relation to the either of these issues in the article. If you are an editor who does, and thus feel the tags should remain, please state so below and justify your reasoning. Also if you believe so, make suggestions on how your specific concerns could be alleviated. Note that an absence of further concerns after some time … can justifiably be viewed as the non-existence of further concerns in relation to these issues. Thank you. ] (] TR 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:If you feel that is the case, that "it is prudent to '''re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns''' in relation to the either of these issues in the article", then respond to FAR and see what the consensus is. They are the one's who wanted the tags. If you do nothing, the tags will remain. Sincerely, ] (]) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
::I hope both of you won't mind if I try to restate your messages in my own words. Part of the reason for doing this is to discover any misunderstandings, so if I get it wrong, then it means it's good that I said something because then there's a chance to explain again and try to get the message understood correctly. I apologize in advance for any offense I might cause by getting something wrong, though. If I understand right, Redthoreau believes that the article may have already been improved enough to justify removing the neutrality and cleanup tags; and Redthoreau is asking that anyone who still believes there are POV or cleanup issues to say specifically what they are and exactly what would need to be done to fix them.
::If I understand right, Mattisse believes that it's not good enough to ask here about the POV and cleanup concerns, but that someone needs to bring up these questions at the FAR page or else the tags will stay. Redthoreau has posted on the FAR page some invitations for discussion, and if I understand right Mattisse believes that the question about tags would also have to be posted at the FAR in order to be able to possibly remove the tags. If I understand right, Mattisse opposes removing the tags based on discussion on this page only but believes the FAR needs to be consulted about it. Please correct me if I have anything wrong. --] (]) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I have added the same question on tags, slightly edited, to the FAR page as well. ] (] TR 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' to Coppertwig. No, you misunderstand me. I have no feelings one way or the other. I just want proper procedure to be followed. ] and ] were my wikipedia editing buddies before they left and I would hate to see the Star removed because no response was give to FAR. I do have some interest in good writing, that is, I am a writer/editor, but that is as far as it goes. You are making assumptions about me. I wish you would stop. Sincerely, ] (]) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


:That's not a reliable source. ] (]) 16:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::'''Mattisse''' ... You ''have no opinion'' ? Hasn't your primary contention, you keep repeating, been that the article in your estimation is POV and needs correction? Is that not an opinion? Do you not believe that the article is POV ? Have I misunderstood you ? In your personal opinion, does the article violate NPOV or not ? ] (] TR 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
::It is his own testimony!!! ] (]) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::That's not how ] works. ] (]) 16:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Edit conflict, "please provide the acronym that supports your logic". LOL. ] (]) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Specifically see points 1 and 2:
::::{{tq|1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim 2. It does not involve claims about third parties;}} ] (]) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Wow, you know how to make pretty colored text. I am impressed. LOL. Thanks for making my day, ] LOL. ] (]) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


;South Park: Officer Barbrady - There's nothing to see here.
{outdent) '''Please stop attacking me. Please comment on article content and not on editors. I have edited not the article since ] threatened me a week ago.''' I wish you both stop taking everything the wrong way. You and Coppertwig have received what you wanted. This article seems to be between you and Coppertwig now. He made some threatening remarks above about what he would if he did not like an edit. I reiterate. My last edit was over a week ago, and I certainly would not risk editing again. Are you and Coppertwig saying I cannot post on the article talk page also? Sincerely, ] (]) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6RWSiR88s&ab_channel=MiamiBadBoyBOSS
::Mattisse, my intention was not to "attack you" and I apologize if you misinterpreted me asking you for clarification as an "attack." Also I am not aware of how my above statement qualifies as an attack on you ... but I suppose in your perception it is, which I regret. I simply am confused over your stance. At present ... do you find the article to be neutral? In its present state, do you find the article to be NPOV? Thanks. ] (] TR 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:Perhaps I should clarify. Good writing means being accurate (to me). I agreed with all the other opinions on the FAR page that the article had massive POV problems. Are you saying that because I want the article to be NPOV, that makes me POV? If I don't agree with everything you write in the article, that makes me POV? Does it work the other way around also? Sincerely, ] (]) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


== Lies & propaganda surrounding Che. ==
::I agree and want '''accuracy''' as well. I do not wish for any inaccurate material to be in the article. Are you aware of any '''?''' If you are please let us know so we can change them immediately. As for POV ... wouldn’t you finding the article to be POV be your own Point Of View '''?''' As for POV or Neutrality ... I also want the article to be neutral and NPOV as well. That is why I have asked and will ask again, for you to point out any instances where you believe either is present, so we can discuss them and fix them. Thanks. ] (] TR 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
:*Oh, dear, I seem to have messed up again. I'm sorry, Mattisse. I'll try harder not to make any assumptions about you. I really hope that you will continue to participate in discussion on this talk page and in editing the article. I certainly don't want to appear to be so threatening that I discourage you from editing the article at all -- that would be a big loss. I said that I might do re-reverts if people do reverts without first discussing or giving reasons (or at least, that's what I meant). But I restrict myself to ], so I hope that's not much of a threat! I hope to see you making suggestions on this talk page for some specific changes and explaining why you think those changes would be good. --] (]) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I feel that you have very clearly taken a side by condoning Redthoreau's continuing person attacks on me, without remonstration. (Comment on the content not on the editor -- all his comments to me have ignored this rule.) Even on your talk page he has done so with no reproach (other than one very mild one) from you. Perhaps you started off on the wrong foot by threatening me in the very beginning of your entrance on the scene, treating me very differently than Redthoreau. Further, you seemed to have a preconceived notion about me from the start. You have made several assumptions about me and acted on them. I do not know how or why you you have developed your picture of me. I have not edited since you have entered into this. I will not edit this article again until all editors are allowed to participate without threats, personal attacks and fear of arbitrary reversion. Also, I am just tired of the personal attacks and the ugly atmosphere than now pervades. Nothing I have suggested has even been received neutrally by Redthoreau. All my attempts to help have been received negatively. There is no assumption of good faith Sincerely, ] (]) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/che-guevara-executing-women/
==Citation for story?==
The article now has a recent addition which states: ''"Che's next plan to hit an enemy garrison did not go as planned and Che, in fear and about to flee, almost shot one of his own sentries. Although the garrison eventually surrendered, Che had already run away."'' '''Is there a citation for this account?''' Mattisse, I believe you added it, can you provide me the citation for the story'''?''' Thanks. ] (] TR 04:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Example number 1: The link listed above where the accusation of him “Killing 2 woman” came out including him being accused of being a mass murderer (which is false, the people executed weren't innocent and were those working with Batista, war criminals etc.
==What happened??? - restoring to yesterday==
When I went to bed last night the article was '''79 K''' bytes ... and this morning it is '''138 K''' bytes. And has apparently been reverted back to a version before weeks of edits during FA by numerous editors (Polaris, Mattisse, Myself etc). ??? All with no discussion on the talk page whatsoever. As a result I am going to restore the article back to the version yesterday on March 27 ... and editors can feel free to contribute from that point. ] (] TR 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Example number 2: The accusation that he was responsible for the UMAP camps/Imprisonment of homosexuals.
The one which has lost a great deal of content and is full of POV and other issues and tags?
in 1965 Che resigned his position as minister of industries and went to the Congo. He wasn't in Cuba during the operations of the camps and nor was he involved, Castro later took accountability for these camps stating how he failed the LGBT community in Cuba. ] (]) 16:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Is the version you reverted back to really a substantial improvement than before other than being condensed? I'm afraid to see a great article eroded when clearly a lot of time and effort has fgone into it -too much in my view which is why it currnetly has issues; I believe it has been over edited. Much respect to the editors who have worked on it, but why has it suddenly been tagged over the last week or two? ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


== Category:Stalinism ==
:The tags were added , the general consensus seems to be that the version that was taken to FAR was uncommonly large for a FA. - ] 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Obviously Che was supportive of Stalin at one point, and maybe throughout his life? I'm not an expert. However I don't think this was a "defining characteristic," as laid out in ]. The article mentions Stalin once but doesn't really make clear Che's connection to Stalinism or why the category is there. I'm removing it. ] (]) 13:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Why should size constitute a problem? It was promoted as '''138 K''' bytes, so why should now somebody question its size? The problem was the number of additions made, all of which are POV and crap. With all due respect to Polaris, Mattisse and Redthoreau, all of whom are apparently great editors, comprehensiveness is far more important than size. Guevara's illustrious life should be written comprehensively, regardless of how long it would be. Only after this new, short version was established, and as you call it, "weeks of edits", the tags were added in. Isn't it a shame that such an amazing article is being demoted in front of your face? Not weeks, months and even years of work have gone into that. And when one editor wants to help and restore the well written, well referenced, comprehensive version, it's being reverted? Look at the FAR, the '''remove''' votes are coming now because of that. I'm shocked! ] • <sup>'']''</sup> 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:03, 31 December 2024

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.
Article policies
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 
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government / Core
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
WikiProject iconSocialism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / South America / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
South American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
WikiProject iconArgentina Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve Che Guevara, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCuba Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cuba task list:

Task list

WikiProject iconCaribbean High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBasque
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Basque Country, Basque people, Basque language, history and culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAtheism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Be consistent

  • Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
  • Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
  • Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Articles to improve

Create

  • Articles on notable atheists


Expand

Immediate attention

  • State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
  • False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
  • Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
  • Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.
WikiProject iconBolivia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bolivia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all Bolivia-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoliviaWikipedia:WikiProject BoliviaTemplate:WikiProject BoliviaBolivia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article is featured on the Bolivia Portal selected article section.
WikiProject iconHistory
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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.
Former featured articleChe 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.
Good articleChe 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
March 10, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 23, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
August 28, 2009Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 8, 2004, October 8, 2005, October 8, 2006, October 7, 2009, October 7, 2010, October 8, 2011, October 8, 2013, October 8, 2017, October 8, 2019, and October 8, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Views in Argentina

I travelled extensively in Argentina and the views on Guevara were unanimous; he is rarely mentioned there and is certainly not a source of pride. Many I met described him as a "psychopath" who enjoyed killing people. He apparently told his father that he "enjoyed the smell of cordite and blood" after he had shot someone through the head. Not sure if this is worth extra exploration. 86.153.86.158 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It definitely isn't, I for one know plenty of Argentinians that are in awe of Guevara. Hearsay is not worth being mentioned on Misplaced Pages. 2A02:1811:C1F:8200:3564:4278:E78B:F860 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Che was a psychopath who enjoyed killing people. He was also a homophobic and racist who hated black people. This is not hearsay. He publicly executed innocent Cubans by gunshot in front of many witnesses as a warning to anyone who tried to oppose their new government. Hectorgavilla (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Striking out material from block evader. Grandpallama (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Although I agree that the heresay is irrelevant to our article, I looked at the IP and saw no evidence of block evasion. Is there a link that shows it? If so, it would be helpful if that is mentioned on the IP's talk page in case that editor continues making edits. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
David Tornheim, the editor is unlikely to show up with this particular IP again, as it's not static. That said, it's been pointed out to me that the age of the edit is such that I'm probably causing confusion more than helping (which makes sense); I only noticed today that he'd become active again for a while last year and was clearly overzealous in wanting to scrub his unproductive contributions. I've reverted my strikethrough. Grandpallama (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Che was a mass murderer

Please add that Che Guevara was a mass murderer in the first sentence of this article. He should be put in the same category as Hitler. the sentence should read as follows:

was an Argentine Marxist Mass Murderer, physician, author, guerrilla leader, diplomat, and military theorist. Hectorgavilla (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

When was he convicted of being a mass murderer? HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
in Cuba he lined up innocent people against a wall “pared” and executed them without a trial for the public to witness. My Cuban family witnessed these executions and knew people who disappeared. He forced at gunpoint the removal of families from their homes. The only way to enforce socialism is to take away everything the people own by execution and physical violence. No one will willingly give the government their possessions. What I stated are facts. Hectorgavilla (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some reliable sources here. Facts aren't hard to find in reliable sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Lots of sources exist, but they're very easy for you to ignore. 73.100.184.209 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
If you have sources, WP:PROVEIT. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Alvaro Vargas LLosa, The Killing Machine; Che Guevara, from Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand" (Independent Insitiute:July 11, 2005, https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1535)
Guillermina Stutter Schneider. "Che Was a Racist, Homophobe, and Mass Murderer" (Human Progress: December 15, 2017, https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/)
Troy J. Sacquety, "Che Guevara: A False Idol for Revolutionaries" (U.S Army Special Forces Command History Office: 2008, https://arsof-history.org/articles/v4n4_false_idol_page_1.html#fn:2)
These three sources support the idea that Che was ruthless, brutal, and guilty of more than enough human rights violations to earn multiple in-depth paragraphs for this article.
Aldrich.Faithful (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Semantic Error

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "Cause of death Execution by shooting" to "Cause of death Elimination by shooting"

Che Guevara's capture and immediate execution without a legal trial would be more accurately described as an extrajudicial killing which is considered a form of murder. This differs from a lawful execution which typically involves a formal trial. Thirdfemalelead (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I replaced it with extrajudicial killing (per what's covered in the article's body). M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you also take care of the "Battles/wars" section, where he was labeled to be executed after a conviction. LackOfInspiration1 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Interview with Tucker Carlson - Ex-CIA Agent Felix Rodriguez on Che Guevara death

Ex-CIA Agent on Capturing Che Guevara, Who Truly Killed JFK, and Election Predictions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwohQJrJeo8&ab_channel=TuckerCarlson

Che Guevara was executed in 1967 in a remote Bolivian village. One of the last people to speak to him alive was CIA officer Felix Rodriguez (former CIA agent). Here’s his story.

Felix Rodriguez worked for the CIA until 1976.

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It is his own testimony!!! Ironcurtain2 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not how WP:ABOUTSELF works. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit conflict, "please provide the acronym that supports your logic". LOL. Ironcurtain2 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Specifically see points 1 and 2:
1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim 2. It does not involve claims about third parties; Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Wow, you know how to make pretty colored text. I am impressed. LOL. Thanks for making my day, User:Simonm223 LOL. Ironcurtain2 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
South Park
Officer Barbrady - There's nothing to see here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6RWSiR88s&ab_channel=MiamiBadBoyBOSS

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Lies & propaganda surrounding Che.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/che-guevara-executing-women/

Example number 1: The link listed above where the accusation of him “Killing 2 woman” came out including him being accused of being a mass murderer (which is false, the people executed weren't innocent and were those working with Batista, war criminals etc.

Example number 2: The accusation that he was responsible for the UMAP camps/Imprisonment of homosexuals. in 1965 Che resigned his position as minister of industries and went to the Congo. He wasn't in Cuba during the operations of the camps and nor was he involved, Castro later took accountability for these camps stating how he failed the LGBT community in Cuba. Sproogli (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Stalinism

Obviously Che was supportive of Stalin at one point, and maybe throughout his life? I'm not an expert. However I don't think this was a "defining characteristic," as laid out in Misplaced Pages:CATDEF. The article mentions Stalin once but doesn't really make clear Che's connection to Stalinism or why the category is there. I'm removing it. Prezbo (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: