Jump to content

Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Non-Controversial/Content TO DO list

There are several tasks which the article needs that are non-controversial and basic.

(1) All the books in the Source Notes and References need to have ISBN #'s (most do, but a few don't) ISBN Finder

(2) Format all the dates uniformly by Month/Date/Year using the "Middle endian format" - i.e. (March 5, 1965) (note: no 0 before the 5)+(month name spelled out) = rationale for this format being it is an English version of the article, and this is the accepted dating format for the U.S. (the largest English speaking country).

If any other editors have basic article tasks which are not controversial or content based, please post them below, and if you are an editor who wishes to volunteer to take up one of these tasks ... please let others know, so we don't have editors working on the same thing. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting is done I think, except inside templates and links. When years appear by themselves I've linked them; not sure if I should have. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to do some work on citation formatting, but haven't yet figured out what to do. I need to re-read the FAR, read WP:Citation, and look at some other featured articles. If anyone does know what to do and is willing to explain it to me I would appreciate it, though maybe it's already explained in the FAR somewhere.
I think maybe the notes using ref tags ("Source notes") are supposed to have only very brief information, (page number, author name and year only, perhaps) and full bibliographic info with ISBN for the same publications is supposed to be listed in the other references section ("References"). I've been meaning to check into this but haven't had time yet. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
American versus British spelling: That's funny -- I thought I had seen a comment somewhere that an early version of the article used American spelling, but now I can't find it. Anyway, I suggest we use American spelling, because the U.S. is mentioned a number of times (e.g. the CIA is mentioned), and because the U.S. is geographically close to the countries involved. It's OK with me to use middle-endian dates, too. (Nifty term, "middle-endian" -- I'm not sure I'd heard it before.) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion - work on having a policy of no personal attacks allowed on editors working on this article. You will be much more likely to get other editors to help. Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Great suggestion, hopefully it is followed by all. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Spelling: I went through the article with my browser which underlines misspelled words. I believe it follows the U.S. spelling convention (anyway, it underlines "honour" but not "honor"). I may have missed seeing some, and I ignored underlined Spanish words, names etc., but the only things I found were "guerillas" spelled with one r, and "advisors". I changed "guerrillas" to two r's in two place to match the way the word is spelled in the rest of the article (two r's also seem to be preferred by my browser and by Wiktionary). I don't know why it underlines "advisors"; Wiktionary says that's the usual U.S. spelling, with "advisers" having a different connotation. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I did miss something! "Argentinean". Actually, this seems to be correct. Another spelling is "Argentinian", and another variant is "Argentine". I've checked several dictionaries and done Google searches and have not found a definitive answer. "Argentinian" has about three times as many Google hits as "Argentinean" on a number of different types of searches. However, "Argentinean" may be an American spelling, based on these Google News searches: '"New York" "Argentinean"' 44 hits. '"New York" "Argentinian"' 34 hits. '"London" "Argentinean"' 27 hits. '"London" "Argentinian"' 90 hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone has just changed "Argentinean" in the lead to "Argentine". I don't know which is better. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well in Spanish its written Argentino, so "Argentine" its probably closer to this root. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and comment. At least if it's "Argentine", maybe people will be less likely to come along and change "Argentinean" to "Argentinian". We'll see. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Car HQ, and believe that is probably the reason why the new Che Guevara film starring Benicio Del Toro is titled: The Argentine Redthoreau (talk TR 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Clarifyme"

In case anyone is interested: In this edit, a "clarifyme" tag is removed from the sentence "Guevara remains a controversial and significant historical figure.". --Coppertwig (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The "clarify me" tag I believe was added in relation to the term "respected", which LingNut changed to "influential" and which I then edited to the synonym "significant" ... since the word "influential is mentioned 2 sentences later. If editors still need “clarification” on that sentence, they can re-add the tag, and I we could talk about it further. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and for the openness to further discussion. I didn't know what the tag was referring to; it sounds as if it's not needed any more. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressing BuddingJournalist's comments from FAR

Re BuddingJournalist's comments at the FAR. Note that, as Redthoreau pointed out, many of these comments may be based on an older version of the article that was temporarily reverted to; e.g. perhaps the state of the article at 17:21 28 March 2008 (UTC). Here I'm condensing/paraphrasing/commenting on some of BuddingJournalist's comments. If/when you believe an item on this list has been corrected, I encourage you to mark it in this list as done. When I sign a "done" it may mean I did it myself or that I've verified that it's been done.

Extended content

in the older version of the article it said:

"In Guatemala", he wrote, "I will perfect myself and accomplish whatever may be necessary in order to become a true revolutionary."<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26. "En Guatemala me perfeccionaré y lograré lo que me falta para ser un revolucionario auténtico." This statement in a letter written in Costa Rica on 10 December 1953 is important because it proves that, whereas many authors have asserted that Guevara became a revolutionary as a result of witnessing the US-sponsored coup against Arbenz, he had in fact already made the decision to become a revolutionary before arriving in Guatemala and indeed went there for that express purpose.</ref>

Current version:

Guevara decided to settle down in Guatemala so as to perfect himself[clarification needed] and do what was necessary to become a true revolutionary.<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26.</ref>

I suggest something between these two versions: Guevara decided to settle down in Guatemala so as to "perfect [him]self and accomplish whatever may be necessary in order to become a true revolutionary".<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26. "En Guatemala me perfeccionaré y lograré lo que me falta para ser un revolucionario auténtico."</ref>

I implemented it as I had suggested above. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

End of list of BuddingJournalists' comments as condensed/paraphrased and commented on by me. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have access to Gleijeses book?

BuddingJournalist seems insistent that the Cuba section should use this book as a reference: Piero Gleijeses' Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Does anyone have it? If not, I might order it through a second-hand bookstore. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've ordered a copy of this book. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
i searched for it in india its not available--UD (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Ling.Nut's comments from FAR

Here's a list of Ling.Nut's comments, condensed, paraphrased and commented on by me. The original comments by Ling.Nut are at 14:44, 24 February 2008 plus many comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara between 13:28 29 March 2008 (UTC) and 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC). I encourage people to mark things in this list as done if/when they are. When I sign things as done, I may have either done them myself or verified that they've been done.

  • Lead needs to be a summary of the article
  • Lead needs to mention controversy
  • Remove hagiographic tone of article to conform with NPOV
  • Give increased prominence to mention of controversy; reader should not be able to tell what POV writers have
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) "Easter egg" wikilinks (I believe I've fixed these; see discussion in Analysis of wikilinks section of this talk page.)
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) should perhaps say "neo-colonialism" rather than "colonialism".
  • "The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime." NPOV problem. Now says "Guevara was charged with purging the Batista army and consolidating victory by exacting "revolutionary justice" against traitors, chivatos, and Batista's war criminals.[23] Serving in the post as "supreme prosecutor" on the appellate bench, Guevara oversaw the trials and executions of those convicted by revolutionary tribunal. The justification for the executions was the hope of preventing the people themselves from taking justice into their own hands, as happened during the chaos of the anti-Machado rebellion"
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)) ".in Guatemala so as to perfect himself." questions use of the phrase "perfect himself." This may be addressed by my suggestion in the section above, presenting it as a quote.
  • redundancy in lead: "author", photo each mentioned twice, maybe other things. Can be condensed.
  • "disciplined brutality" oxymoron and NPOV problem
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) "as everything from a 'saint'to a 'butcher'" No longer in article.
  • broken link: online at stockholm spectator; also check for other broken links
  • "It is also said that he memorized..." citation needed.
  • '"became known for his radical perspective even as a boy, idolizing Francisco Pizarro..." Poor word choice, since "radical" implies "political".. was Pizarro radical? Had Pizarro read Saul Alinksy, perhaps?' (This is exact quote of Ling.Nut's comment.)
  • Check different sources for account of last words, e.g. Mallin, Jay (1968) as cited in comment by Ling.Nut
  • Check FrontPage re several thousand executions
  • Verify or disprove several claims by FrontPage magazine
  • More on role of Herbert Matthews and American press

End of list of Ling.Nut's comments from FAR as condensed/paraphrased/commented on by me. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

Here's the reformatting of references I'm planning to do. Let me know if there are any objections.

Currently we have "Content notes", "Source notes" and "References" sections. This plan involves the second two of these.

Plan: Make the "Source notes" section into a list of short references (just author, year and page number, unless more info is needed to distinguish two similar sources), and list complete bibliographic information in the "References" section. Remove the tag at the top of the "Source notes" section which asks for ISBN numbers; perhaps move it to the "References" section or just delete it. Make links from the notes in the Source notes to the items in References as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references.

Therefore, within the text of the article, material within <ref></ref> tags will be just author, year, and page number (unlsss...), along with a code for linking it. People adding new references should then follow this format (making sure the full info on the reference is in the References section.)

I believe this plan is consistent with SandyGeorgia's message of Feb. 27, and with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 15#Cite.php. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

e.g. "Miller 2005, p.23." (From Shortened notes link.) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, when the author's name is spelled with accents, I spell the cite id without accents, e.g. "<cite id=refPena2004>Peña, Emilio Herasme ..." --Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

About there being two types of footnotes: There were also two types of footnotes when the article was originally approved as a featured article. I would be open to discussing changing the footnote style, but I would like to point out that there are advantages to having two types of footnotes. I've seen at least one book with more than one type of superscript-indicated note used for different purposes.

With the use of cref and shortened ref notes, the wikitext remains uncluttered. The ref notes have the advantages that the superscript is small and unobtrusive and that there is a wikilink not only down into the footnote but also back up into the text, which can be useful for various purposes: one might start from the footnote and try to find where in the text it's used. Having two different types of footnotes serves the reader by letting the reader know what type of information is to be obtained. If the reader wants to know the reference for verification, the reader can click on the numbered footnotes, and if the reader wants additional information, the reader can click on the named footnotes. It saves the reader time and frustration to know before clicking which type of information will be seen.

SandyGeorgia, in reply to your edit summary "one of the messiest articles I've seen on Wiki, don't small the refs twice, they become illegible, something should be done about these notes": Note that I'm in the process of reformatting the references as described in this section. I haven't gotten very far yet -- I only started approximately a day ago. I'm open to specific suggestions about how to do it. I'd appreciate it if you would specify what you mean by "messy" in your edit summary so that we can do something to address the problem. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that citations be formatted as follows. It's similar to the way most are already formatted, but requires moving the year to immediately after the author's name, where I think it's easier to find, and also changing the use of italics (and bold for the volume number, and possibly other details) in the case of articles. Currently, the year is usually given near the end, just before the ISBN number. Also, adding a period after the ISBN number. These examples are from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style; the first is for a book, the second for a journal article (or chapter of a book etc. would be similar).

  • Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9.
  • Brandybuck, Meriadoc (1955). "Herb lore of the Shire". Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry 10(2), 234–351.

--Coppertwig (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although yes the article needs common formatting, in my opinion it is clearly not the "messiest" article on wikipedia as SandyGeorgia contends ... and to declare it that, I would contend is exaggeratory hyperbole and non constructive negativity ... especially when given in a "drive by" fashion without suggestions for correction.       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that when references are given within the content notes, that they be formatted like this: ([[#refGuevaraLynch2000|Guevara Lynch 2000]], p. 26.) (For an example, see the source note I just created called "perfeccionaré".) This is so that the reference will jump immediately down into the References section. If <ref> tags are used, then once the wikilinks into References are added, the reader would have to make 3 jumps, through all 3 footnote sections, to find out what the source is; I think that's too much.

I furthermore propose that the Content Notes be put into alphabetical order. Currently they seem to be approximately in the order they appear in the text. I think it would be much easier to maintain them in a correct order if they were alphabetical. It may also (arguably) be easier for the reader to find a given note in the list if they're alphabetical.

I would appreciate comments on the above proposals. In particular, if anyone objects to any of the format changes I suggest above, please say so. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I trust your judgment on formatting matters and think it sounds good.       Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Extended content

(speaking of the time when he met Hilda and was introduced to a number of people including a number of Cubans) "Au Mexique, on fait précéder le nom des Argentins de Che. Ernesto n'a pas failli à la règle : il est devenu el Che Guevara. Quand Nico López, les Roa et les autres Cubains commencèrent à le fréquenter, il répondait déjà à ce sobriquet. Pour simplifier, il devint Che. Cette syllabe ... commence ou ponctue les phrases. De fait, Ernesto se démarquait de ses amis latino-américains en servant du che à tout bout de phrase." (ellipsis mine. Translation: In Mexico, they put "Che" in front of the names of Argentineans. Ernesto was no exception to this rule: he became el Che Guevara. When Nico López, the Roas and the other Cubans began associating with him, he already answered to the nickname. For simplicity, he became Che. This syllable ... begins or punctuates sentences. In fact, Ernesto distinguished himself from his Latin-American friends by using che at the end of every sentence.)

--Coppertwig (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • done(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) The name "Castro" appears 3 times in this sentence. (Not that I'm not the one responsible for that! :-) I suggest deleting "with Castro" (i.e. the 2nd occurrence of the name). "With the group withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether Castro was alive or dead until the famous Herbert Matthews interview with Castro appeared in the New York Times in early 1957, presenting a lasting, almost mythical image for Castro."
  • done(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) Figure out how to format "(July 15 - 27)". Link? Spaces around hyphen?
    I didn't find day ranges in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but they do year ranges with an n-dash and no spaces, so I guess the day range is the same. I guess I won't link it: autoformatting probably wouldn't work in this case. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) Figure out correct grammar for "United States who was"--Coppertwig (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) Question: Re date of death, it says something happened on Oct. 7, then it says "the next day," seeming to perhaps imply he was executed on Oct. 8, but the infobox says Oct. 9. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I verified it in Anderson (pp. 732–733) and modified the wording to make the dates of capture and execution clear. Not easy, because it's not clear on which date the action of "encircling" occurred. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • is OK as-is(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) "Argentine police": why is "Argentine" used here, but "Argentinean" in the first sentence of the article? Maybe there's a subtle difference in meaning, since the police are not an individual, and the -ean or -ian ending tends to imply an individual. May be OK. Approx Google hits: "Argentine police" 8000, "Argentinean police" 1000, "Argentinian police" 1400.
  • is OK as-is(Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)) "It also records the rift between Guevara and the Bolivian Communist Party that resulted in Guevara having significantly fewer soldiers than originally expected and shows that Guevara had a great deal of difficulty recruiting from the local populace, due in part to the fact that the guerrilla group had learned Quechua, unaware that the local language was actually Tupí-Guaraní." —can be reworked to— "It also explains Guevara having significantly fewer soldiers than originally expected because of a rift between Guevara and the Bolivian Communist Party and because of great difficulty recruiting from the local populace, due in part to the fact that the guerrilla group had learned Quechua, unaware that the local language was actually Tupí-Guaraní." Not sure which is better. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • done (Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) "by youth and leftist inspired movements throughout the world" is ambiguous. Depending on meaning, change to either "by youth and by leftist-inspired movements throughout the world" or "by youth- and leftist-inspired movements throughout the world" or "by leftist-inspired and youth movements throughout the world". (3 possible meanings: by youth, or by youth-inspired movements or by youth movements. I suggest youth movements, i.e. the 3rd suggested wording.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) These words no longer appear in the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Who is Ernesto Guevara Lynch? Same person as Che or different? There's a publication by this person in the references list. Is it actually used in the article? --Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer: Che's Father Redthoreau (talk TR 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer; but it's still a little confusing. That's the reference for the quote where he says he'll "perfect [him]self". I guess his father quotes him? That needs to be made more clear. I'll try to do that. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The "perfect" himself, was written in a letter from Guevara to his parents (which was probably republished in the fathers book). Throughout his life Che was a prolific letter writer, and a great deal of information about him, comes from letters written from him to his parents/family. Most are contained in the book "Self Portrait" listed in his authored works (which is a great book of insight to his personal thought).       Redthoreau (talk TR 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, for now I have it saying "Che's father quotes him, ..." which I think is good enough but if someone finds a reference (or checks the reference listed) we may be able to word it a little more specifically. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 16#Analysis of wikilinks.

  • I decided to leave all the links to Castro after all. Same for Bolivia. They're in logical places, no more than one in a section etc. (except maybe we don't need a link to Bolivia from both the lead and the infobox).
  • Cuba: there had been no link to Cuba from the Cuba section! I fixed that, and removed two links to Cuba from the Congo section.
  • 26th of July movement: I suggest either using the abbreviation every time except the first occurrence, or not using the abbreviation at all. When this change is made, I suggest removing one more wikilink so the Cuba section has only one wikilink to this movement. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    I suggest that it be referred to as "26th of July movement" throughout, in order to be consistent with the Wikipedia article 26th of July movement, and arguably supported by Wikipedia:Manual of style#Acronyms and abbreviations "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations" section. Anderson uses "July 26 Movement". Approximate Google hits: "M-26-7" 90,000; "26th of July movement" 20,000; "July 26 movement" 4000; "July 26th movement" 3500; "26 of July movement" 900. However, some of the "M-26-7" hits don't seem to be directly relevant, e.g. the abbreviation being used as (part or all of) a username.
  • Actually, 4 links to Alberto Korda look OK.
  • I removed one of 2 links from the lead to Che Guevara (photo), and removed the link from "symbol".
  • Sierra is a disambiguation page. I removed the link. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through the multiple links listed at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7 (2nd section) and reduced the number of links of those I thought needed to be reduced. Mostly I didn't reduce them as far as the numbers I'd originally suggested; seeing their context in the article I decided to leave many in. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on Timeline?

What are other editor’s opinions on the inclusion of the Timeline picture? I remember User:Polaris999 had told me that he created it for the article in hopes it would improve its FA status, but I have yet to see Timelines in very many articles of featured historical figures. I believe that the amount of space it takes up, might not equate to it's informational value, but would be hesitant to remove it without consulting other editors, and because of the fact that User:Polaris999 (an editor I have great respect for) included it. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that the timeline is in a collapsible box, but with default of not-collapsed. How about just making the default collapsed? Then it would hardly take up any space and people would only see it if they clicked "show".
Is there any way to make the font larger in the timeline? I can hardly read it. It would be nice to be able to control the font size. I can control the font size of the text of the article using my browser, but the font of the timeline stays the same. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that idea of the collapse. Unfortunately I think the image is set as is in size. There is always the option as well of an updated Timeline, which I would be willing to create. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.[1] I consulted Wikipedia:NavFrame to figure out how. It says NavFrame has been deprecated in favour of collapsible tables. I don't know how to convert to collapsible tables (I tried; it didn't work) or whether it's possible to do that for a timeline. I can't find documentation on how to do the timeline. The wording itself can be easily edited, but I don't know how to change the font size. Don't worry too much about the font size -- I suppose maybe it's OK for most people, and I can manage. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

--Coppertwig (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I'm removing this broken link from the Moynihan reference. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

List of to-do lists

--Coppertwig (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Turning out very nicely

Just wanted to add my contention, that the article is coming out very nicely, and becoming vastly improved from even a shirt time ago, mostly thanks to the organizational skill and direction from Coppertwig. Let's keep it up. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but don't underrate the contribution from yourself, who are vastly more knowledgeable on the subject than I. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Neutrality still in dispute?, viability of Tag

When the Neutrality tag was placed on the article, it was 3 months ago, when the article was twice the size, and before thousands of edits (by numerous collaborating editors). Also the neutrality tag was NOT part of the FAR process, but separate and came later. Do editors still have doubts about the article's neutrality in its current state as of APRIL 6, 2008? If so, what are they? (And please be specific, so we can address them). If not ... then I believe the tag could be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time, I'm not taking a position as to whether the tag should or should not be there. I may change my position at some point. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • According to Wiki template tag policy,

Wikipedia:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

Being that no editors have mentioned further neutrality concerns, I am going to remove the POV tag. IF an editor believes that it should be reinstated, then feel free to do so, and include a list of concerns to address, as the aforementioned policy guideline suggests. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References removed from article

I removed the following reference(s) from the article:

The following references don't seem to appear in the current version of the article, though they were there earlier:

☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

The following reference was added April 1. The same publication is already listed in the References section, with no web link. I see no reason to think the website is not violating copyright, in which case we should not link to it.

--Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I took it out, maybe a day or two ago. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken this one out for similar reasons, Online at Sozialistische Klassiker (was given as link for English translation of Guevara's Algiers speech); possibly copyvio, plus the link goes to some sort of home page and it's not immediately obvious to me how to find the desired text. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This link has been deleted from Wikisource as a copyvio, so I'm removing the link here: English translation of complete text: Che Guevara's Farewell Letter at Wikisource. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this link is a copyvio, so I'm removing the link. (Diario del Che en Bolivia.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

Ok, just to explain why I removed the Cuban flag from the infobox, while Che was a dual-citizen he had no other direct relation to Cuba, that being linked by birth or ethnicity, the tendency troughout Wikipedia has been completely removing flags from the infobox, but for now I am following the one we had prior to that with dual-citizens wich was to only use the one from the nation of birth or in some cases the ethinicity when the person was born in a country by a matter of chance. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I concede to your rationale, and appreciate your explanation. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Font Size for References?

As it stands now: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7

As I think it should be: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7

However, SandyGeorgia has stated that the latter is "too small" to read. I have looked for information on official wikipedia font sizing ... but have been unsuccessful. Can anyone provide me with that? Or do other editors have an opinion on the reference font size? To me the smaller is preferable and still legible, but I am willing to be swayed / and willing to relent to concensus.       Redthoreau (talk TR 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Information: I sometimes use control-shift-+ on my browser, repeated once or twice, to make the font larger so that I can read it easily. This is particularly useful when proofreading: very large letters make it easier to see spelling mistakes, punctuation, etc., IME. This is not an endorsement of any particular font size in the references. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of (proposed) changes to citation style

Changes already in progress, based on consensus:

Further proposed changes; comments welcome:

  • Format references according to examples for books and articles in Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style:
    • Put year in parentheses immediately after author
    • Article title in plain text in quotation marks; journal title in italics
    • Bold type for journal volume
    • Period at the end (usually after ISBN #)
    • Possibly other details of punctuation etc.
  • Put Content notes into alphabetical order
  • References within content notes: format them as links directly to References section, as is done within the shortened notes

--Coppertwig (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Redthoreau had already indicated acceptance of the above suggestions. Further suggestion:

  • After I've finished converting the Source notes into shortened notes, I suggest that the code for the Source notes be changed to from {{reflist|2}} to {{reflist|colwidth=20em}}. The latter allows the number of columns to be set on-the-fly depending on the width of the window in which the page is displayed. See Template:reflist.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated to-do list

This is not a replacement for List of to-do lists. This is for collecting the few items not done out of some other to-do lists, so that the original to-do lists can be archived.

--Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Che Guevara#Wanna help?. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are going to need to address the forced image sizes in this article. They are generally frowned upon, according to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Skomorokh 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Object to removal of POV tag

The objections listed in the open FAR have not been addressed. They are not crossed off as done. This article is still in Featured Article Review and the main overwhelming complaint was POV issues. I do not see that they have been taken care of. No one is paying attention in FAR as the impression is that others are not allowed to edit this article. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. (1) FAR was notified and asked if there were further objections in relation to Neutrality ? They weighed in with their silence. (2) The POV tag was not part of the FAR process and was applied separately. Also POV tags are not part of FAR review. At the time of the POV concerns 3 months ago, the article was more that twice the size it is now, and hundreds if not thousands of edits have taken place since (including dozens if not hundreds by yourself). (3) As I state above ... if an editor has future POV concerns ... there is a process of going about that. Any editor can list their "specific" neutrality concerns and suggestions of how they would like them addressed. If those go unaddressed ... then any editor can include a tag disputing neutrality. (4) This article is constantly being improved every day and the concerns of FAR are being addressed specifically (see the numerous lists) which Coppertwig has painstakingly ordered). Any editor is free to assist, including you, as there are still issues that need to be completed. (5) If you want to be a part of the editing process, then I encourage you to stick around. It is not productive to announce your complete departure numerous times and then reappear and make requests or have doubts about edits which have taken place. Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Che Guevara article, Mattisse. I'm delighted to see you posting here.
It would be helpful if you would list some specific POV concerns, the way you listed specific concerns at Talk:The Motorcycle Diaries; or else if you would tell us where exactly to find specific concerns that have been listed by others (or that have been listed earlier by yourself) that you feel are a reason to have the POV tag on the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not allowed to edit this article as you well know. You can tell by the tone of the article's editor above (as well as his behavior when I edited another on of his articles) that nothing has changed. I suggest you cross off the complaints on the FAR page, one by one, and list them as done there. That is the usual procedure. Then each editor who listed an objection can weight in and be given a chance to change his vote from Oppose to Support. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I am going to request that you desist from the constant accusation that I am "not letting" you edit the article. You left the article on your own free will, and upon Coppertwig requesting you to return you told him "NO". I have no power to ban you or keep you from editing. We are all Equal ... and I resent your constant aspersion that I am preventing you from editing ... which I am not. The only times I have even edited any of your contributions have been on occasions when you become angry and tendentiously Disrupt to make a point. I know that you have many talents to offer this article and others ... and I know that you have the ability to be a very productive editor as I have seen on other articles ... It is and will continue to be my hope that you will apply those talents in a productive & collaborative effort on this article if you so choose.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You're free to edit the article, Mattisse, and you're also free to suggest changes on the talk page. I will try to help protect your freedom to edit on an equal standing with other editors and without being attacked. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedure for FAR

  • The procedure for FAR is that you are supposed to cross off each objection on the FAR page as it is fixed. The reviewer is directed to look now and then at FAR and see if his objections have been addressed so that he may change his Oppose vote to Support. I do not see that procedure being followed. The reviewers are probably unaware of any changes. Editors are busy. No one is going to look through the article to see if his points have been addressed there. Silence from FAR, in my experience, derives from a lack of interest. Unless each Oppose is withdrawn, or unless there are an overwhelming number of Supports this article is on the track of losing its star. And the author's opinion does not count in FAR, unless he can refute point by point the objections and his refutations are accepted.
In the spirit of humor ...
The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been." Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider.
Shortcuts
   Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


  • The original nomination for FAR did not contain a complaint about POV. That was originally brought up by SandyGeorgia and echoed by other editors. When SandyGeorgia backed out of the proposed revert, she said to just place a POV and cleanup tag on the article and let it go. As far as I know, she has not modified her view. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Tags are not meant to be "placed to then let them go". They are supposed to be accompanied with a list of concerns related to the tag. As of late she has not responded to any of my questions and I think that you should let her speak for herself. Also updates have been noted on the FAR page ... every editor who is on the FAR list would have received notification of me posting a request related to neutrality ... if they did not bother to read it there ... then what makes you think they would bother to read Coppertwigs updates? Right now this article is larger than just "the star" ... it is about creating the best article possible ... and I believe Coppertwig, myself, and hopefully others (even yourself if committed) will continue to do that.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the reviewers at FAR has withdrawn their oppose vote. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a great development ! and gives me motivation to continue. Keep up your great work Coppertwig.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Too similar to wording of source

This section is taken almost word-for-word from the source and, if kept, needs to be rewritten or presented as a quote: " He called for the diversification of the Cuban economy, and for the elimination of material incentives. He believed that volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth and that all that was needed was will. To display this, Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane, as did Castro." Source given is [2]; see the part of that source under the section heading "Popular but ineffective". --☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that difficult to switch up some of the wording or use quotes. Would you like to do that or should I ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would do it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I like how you took quotes from other sources. I've edited the punctuation, including indicating that the last few words about sugar cane are still a quote. --☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All citation needed tags taken care of

Today I took care of the 4 remaining citation needed tags. None of them remain at this time.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay!!! Well done! That took extensive knowledge as well as time and effort. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse had asked for a ref for him getting his nickname. I just put in Cormier for that. (See quote in "Suggested changes" section above.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse had also asked for a ref for most of the 82 being killed. I changed the text and put in Anderson p. 213 as a ref. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Still need a more complete ref for Ley de la Sierra. (It just says "Ley penal de Cuba en armas, 1959".) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I added it into the main body of the text.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but if the Treto reference supports what's said inside the Content note, then I think it would be more useful to put the reference in the Content note. I can format it if you confirm that it would be an appropriate location for it. Otherwise, the material within the Content note is still not really fully referenced. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, feel free to change that. I have also downloaded the full academic journal article (which requires access to JSTOR, which I have) and can email it to you, if you wish.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality sources

These ones were commented out in the wikitext. I'm removing them. (About.com and geocities: not reliable sources.)

☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, not appropriate for the article.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this, and agree that it is not very reliable, especially for the quoted line attributed to Guevara's father. I'll remove it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous re references

I'm not sure of the correct spelling of the author's name here: it was given in this article as "Aleksandr Alexeiev in Cuba después del triunfo de la revolución ("Cuba after the triumph of the revolution")". I did some Google searches and found another publication referencing it, spelling the name as "Alekseev". I've changed it to the latter spelling. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Heikal's account of Guevara's conversations with Nasser in February and March of 1965 lends further credence to this interpretation. See Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein. The Cairo Documents, pp 347-357." was added by Polaris999 on 17:58, 3 October 2006. So it seems to still be in correct context: it appears to be referring to Che believing that Africa was imperialism's weak link. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says, "After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine consulate, where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to Mexico." Maybe I'm confusing events of different places and time periods, but I think Cormier says that Che was in prison during this time period. On p. 110, it recounts 30 men including Che being taken prisoner. Fidel was there and called to the men to surrender peacefully: "C'est à Cuba que nous nous battrons, pas ici." ("It's in Cuba that we will fight with each other, not here.") Che was then interrogated, with an anglophone in the background whom Che supposed was an agent of the FBI or CIA.

In an earlier version of this article, it said that Che turned down a free plane ticket to Argentina, and someone complained that the article should explain why Che did that. I think I found the reason. I think (but am not completely sure) that this refers to the same event. Cormier p. 111: they're talking about how to get Che out of prison, and Fidel argues that Che as an Argentine is not really involved, but Che is quoted as saying "Je suis lié au destin des Cubains, je reste avec eux." ("I'm bound to the fate of the Cubans; I stay with them.")

Some other bits of information that there might not necessarily be room for in this article: The Granma was only designed to hold about 25 people, and they were 82, so they had to leave behind a lot of supplies. (Cormier, p. 121.) On board the Granma, Che suddenly clapped his hands to his forehead; he had forgotten his asthma medicine: it was on the quay with the supplies which had been deemed inessential. (p. 122.) On Dec. 5, 1956, when they were attacked, Che's firearm was not one of the best. He had felt himself physically diminished by an asthma attack on the voyage, and had thought that the best firearms should go to the men who were fit. (p. 126.) Nico López had been the first member of the group to call Che "Che" (p. 128). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wikilinking some author names in the references list that have Wikipedia pages. For these ones, I've wikilinked but I'm not sure whether I have the right person: Ariel Dorfman, Edmundo Murray. For these ones, I haven't wikilinked because I don't think it's the right person: Ahmed Ben Bella, Edward George, Will Grant, Joseph Hart(wrong century), Michael Moynihan (journalist)(see others by that name at Michael Moynihan) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re being in prison: I'm also reading "Second Voyage" by Che Guevara, (French translation), and (on p. 98) it agrees with the version in this article, that he was in the consulate, not with what I thought Cormier said. I'm still wondering whether Cormier is talking about a different time period or whether he's contradicting other sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Drive by Vandalism

Has really been on the rise the last few days. I wanted to add semi-protection (as it was before) but am unable to and thus can't stop the tide of IP accounts. It's a shame that someone can besmirch an encyclopedia with vulgar sexual language ... but the idiocy on the "internets" never ceases to amaze. However I have a question for other editors ??? How do you report a repeat vandal or have them blocked ? (There should be a "Report" button or something). Thanks and remember to help out by placing the page on your watch list and if free ... check it a once a day for the vandals.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin gave the page semi-protection today till June 1. Great News.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong name

Che Guevara's born document. Legal name written in the left margin: "Guevara, Ernesto"

Dear colegues: My name is Roblespepe, and I am the main editor of the Che Guevara article in the w:es. I want to tell you that the name writen in this article ("Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch") is wrong:

  • In Argentina people only receive the last name of their fathers. The last name of the mothers is optional, and the Che's parents didn't use that option. So his legal name didn't include "de la Serna" (his mother's last name).
  • "Lynch" was the second last name of his father, and it didn't make part of the Che Guevara's full name.
  • The legal name of Che Guevara was: "Ernesto Guevara", without any other addition.

You can verify what I'm saying in the official born document of Che Guevara (legal name is written in the left margin). Kind regards, w:es:Usuario:Roblespepe.17-04-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblespepe (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. If nobody objects in the next while, I'll change it to "Ernesto Guevara". That's how the name is given as the author of some books, anyway. These biographies always seem to leave out the essentials: I don't think Anderson actually states what his name is! Not in the first few pages, anyway. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Coppterwig. In most of the Wikipedias his name is wrongly written. There are several reasons for this, and one is the confussion that come out from the fact that in Argentina people don't use the mother's last name (opossing the rest of Latin America practice), but Che's father had two last names (Guevara Lynch), as most of Argentinean high class people. So, mixing these two peculiarities, you have one main cause of error. Kind regards,--Roblespepe (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the change, however I think that somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that his Father's last name was Lynch and Mother's de la Serna to prevent people from constantly adding it back in.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the name usage.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, wait a second. While explaining the nickname "Fuser," it says "his second surname Serna". This is at least inconsistent, and possibly evidence that he did have such a second surname. I don't see any footnote attached to that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig. As I said above, "De la Serna" (not "Serna"), is the last name of Che's mother. In Argentina the use of the mother's last name following the father is not prohibited, but that's not the legal name. People don't have many legal names, but only one. There cannot be any doubt about the legal name of Che Guevara, because above is the only document where the legal name is legally stated, the born document: "Guevara, Ernesto". If you want to check other official documents, you can see the university certificate (see), or in his doctor's title (see). In both, the legal name is "Ernesto Guevara". "Fuser" was a joke-nickname put to him by his friends in Cordoba, when he was a teenager, because Ernesto used to shout during rugby games: "Furibundo Serna al ataque" (Furious Serna attacking = Fu-Ser). You can see that it's only a joke, where Che was playing with his mother's last name ("De la Serna"). In some ocassions Che add to his last name, part of the last name of his mother (De la Serna), and presented himself as "Ernesto Guevara Serna"; he did this when he made the advertisment for Micron (see), and also when he worked as a reporter for Prensa Latina (see). Of course, these last ones where not his legal last names, but it showed a will of identification of Che Guevara and his mother. Probably to avoid any confussion is better change the phrase "his second surname Serna", by "taken from his mother's last name, "De la Serna"". What do you think? Kind regards, and once more thanks for your attention,--Roblespepe (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
How about something like, "From his mother's last name, which he sometimes used as part of his name according to Latin American custom"? (except that this confuses whether the "De la" part is in there). Does "Serna" have a meaning besides just being his mother's last name, that made him want to mention it during soccer rather than one of his other names? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara en Español

For those that speak Spanish ... the Che Guevara en Español article was a wealth of information that could possibly be incorporated in this article or other Che related articles.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious on Felix/CIA heading up search?

Ling Nut, since you added the Dubious tag on the statement ... can you please provide your rationale, so we can address and alleviate it if possible? Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • First found in Ryan, Henry Butterfield (1998). The Fall of Che Guevara: A Story of Soldiers, Spies, and Diplomats. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511879-0. page 134. I'm sure this is intended to reflect the contents of SalmÓn, Gary Prado (1990 ). The Defeat of Che Guevara: Military Response to Guerrilla Challenge in Bolivia.Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275932117. Odd that the latter book isn't included in the article; was written by the captain commanding the unit that captured Guevara. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So what exactly is disputed ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"...The hunt for Guevara in Bolivia was headed by [[Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency)|Félix Rodríguez]..." Ling.Nut (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) How do you believe it should read ? (2) What is your source for your preferred wording? (3) What is your source for finding the current statement to be incorrect and what exactly does it state ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

undent) What I want, of course, is for someone to read the book by Prado for significant variations from the article's current version, and incorporate them, citing as necessary. the source is given above (Ryan 1998, p. 134). Quote follows:

Varying accounts of Guevara's execution reflect various personal interests. Rodriguez, extrovert, soldier of fortune, and above all Cuban exile and bay of pigs veteran, gives a highly dramatic account of his own involvement with Guevara on October 9...[ellide]...Rodriguez even affirms that he was considered to be in command of the Bolivian contingent when Guevara was executed; no one else has substantiated this claim... prado will have none of it. he states that although he himself had returned to the ravine, Zenteno as at La Higuera and in command atthe time of the execution. Rodriguez, prado says, identified Guevara, took pictures of him, and photographed his diary, nothing more, just as the CIA had little to do with the campaign in general. he says Rodriguez returned to vallegrande after a few hours, which if true would mean that he could not have been involved in the execution the way he says he was...This is more than a historical quibble. In Prado's view, R. is grandstanding, claiming undue credit not only for himself but also by extension for the CIA and the United States...

Here we see the roles of Rodriguez and the CIA explicitly minimized by a firsthand accound; in the article, the lead sentence explicitly states Rodriguez led the capture, and could easily be read to imply that the CIA in fact led the entire operation. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've finessed this by making explicit the fact that it is Rodriguez himself claiming to be the one in charge of the hunt for Che. As such, I think, done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight

To me the most important policy of wikipedia ... especially in reference to POV disputes.

Undue weight ---

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

   Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

At what point do firsthand accounts become undue weight? Ling.Nut (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Great question, without an exact answer. The same people who will usually charge that we can not take Fidel's personal accounts of Che's actions (since he was an ally) - will usually have no problem taking the personal account of the men who captured and executed Che (who were obviously a foe). Both sides have an embedded self interest to "skew" the truth to either make Guevara look "good" or "bad". For example, it is the interest of those who captured Guevara to state that he said "Don't shoot, I'm worth more to you alive" - as to make him appear that at the moment of capture he quibbled and became cowardly. I doubt that if he had actually been captured emptying his clip and shouting "You'll never take me alive" - that they would want to portray the more "defiant" account ... do you? Contrarily, you can usually trust something if it goes against one's self interest ... for instance if the man who captures/kills Guevara states something "positive" about him ... then you can usually assume he is not making that up, as it would be against his embedded self interest to make him appear a sympathetic character. Felix Rodriguez fits this bill, as he gives a fairly positive account of his final conversation with Guevara, and humanizes him, to the point of saying that he felt sorry for him, and had respect for him while embracing him etc. It is always interesting that we trust the account of the man to murder Guevara for his last words? Likewise would we trust other more prominent murderers on the last words of their victims? My point being that all of this is "vague" and inexact. Nobody for sure really knows what "actually" happened in any of these cases. As historians or academics it is our duty to take all of the conflicting narratives and try to weave them into an overall storyline ... taking into account the historical context, credibility, and possible motives of each "storyteller". Another good way to judge the veracity of a claim is by “dissemination” and the amount of people who have already made this same calculus I describe above, and deemed a certain tale of events, to be closest to the truth. Thus yes, sometimes the “conventional wisdom” is sometimes the best we have … and other minority views may violate undue weight.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

References without inline citations

Listed in references section, but not used in inline citations. Should we remove these? Do we have any idea which, if any, of the ideas in the text are supported by these?

  • Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel ("Benigno") (2002). Memorias de un Soldado Cubano: Vida y Muerte de la Revolución. Barcelona: Tusquets Editores S.A. ISBN 84-8310-014-2.
  • Bravo, Marcos (2005). La Otra Cara Del Che. Bogota, Colombia: Editorial Solar.
  • Feldman, Allen (2003). "Political Terror and the Technologies of Memory: Excuse, Sacrifice, Commodification, and Actuarial Moralities". Radical History Review 85, 58–73.
  • Escobar, Froilán and Félix Guerra (1988). Che: Sierra adentro ("Che: Deep in the Sierra"). Havana: Editora Política.
  • Fuentes, Norberto (2004). La Autobiografía De Fidel Castro ("The Autobiography of Fidel Castro"). Mexico D.F: Editorial Planeta. ISBN 84-233-3604-2, ISBN 970-749-001-2.
  • George, Edward (2005). The Cuban Intervention In Angola, 1965–1991: From Che Guevara To Cuito Cuanavale. London & Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass Publishers. ISBN 0-415-35015-8.
  • Gleijeses, Piero (Spring 1996). "Cuba's First Venture in Africa: Algeria, 1961–1965", Journal of Latin American Studies No. 28. London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Granado, Alberto (2004). Travelling with Che Guevara – The Making of a Revolutionary. New York: Newmarket Press. ISBN 1-55704-640-9 (hardcover), ISBN 1-55704-639-5 (pbk.)
  • Guevara, Ernesto "Che" (2006). The Great Debate on Political Economy. New York: Ocean Press. ISBN-10: 1876175540, ISBN-13: 978-1876175542.
  • Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein (1973). The Cairo Documents. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-385-06447-0.
  • Holland, Max (Fall 2005). "Private Sources of U.S. Foreign Policy William Pawley and the 1954 Coup d'État in Guatemala". Journal of Cold War Studies 7(4), 36–73.
  • James, Daniel (1969). Che Guevara: A Biography. New York: Stein and Day. ISBN 0812813480.
  • James, Daniel (2001). Che Guevara. New York: Cooper Square Press. ISBN 0-8154-1144-8.
  • Kahn, David (1967). The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0684831309.
  • Matos, Huber (2002). Como llegó la Noche ("As night arrived"). Barcelona: Tusquet Editores, SA. ISBN 84-8310-944-1.
  • Miná, Gianni (1991). An Encounter with Fidel. Melbourne: Ocean Press. ISBN 1-875284-22-2.
  • Morán Arce, Lucas (1980). La revolución cubana, 1953–1959: Una versión rebelde ("The Cuban Revolution, 1953–1959: a rebel version"). Ponce, Puerto Rico: Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Católica. ISBN B0000EDAW9.
  • Peña, Emilio Herasme (June 14, 2004). La Expedición Armada de junio de 1959. Listín Diario, (Dominican Republic).
  • Peredo-Leigue, Guido "Inti" (1979). Mi campaña junto al Che. México: Ed. Siglo XXI. "PDF version" (PDF). (637 KiB).
  • Rojo del Río, Manuel (1981). La Historia Cambió En La Sierra ("History changed in the Sierra"). 2a Ed. Aumentada (Augmented second edition). San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Texto.
  • Ros, Enrique (2003). Fidel Castro y El Gatillo Alegre: Sus Años Universitarios (Colección Cuba y Sus Jueces). Miami: Ediciones Universal. ISBN 1-59388-006-5.
  • Thomas, Hugh (April 1998). Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom (Updated edition). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80827-7.
  • Villegas, Harry "Pombo" (1996). Pombo : un hombre de la guerrilla del Che: diario y testimonio inéditos, 1966–1968. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Colihue S.R.L. ISBN 950-581-667-7.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"fomenting"

I suggest that the words "fomenting" and "inciting" as in "fomenting revolution" are POV and need to be replaced with neutral words.

foment: "to encourage or instigate (trouble, discord, etc.), stir up." (The Collins English Dictionary. 1979, 1986, 1988. ISBN 0 00 433134-6. William Collins & Co. Ltd. Great Britain.)

Here are some possible alternative words (with the help of a thesaurus and a family member). I've classified them into positive, negative and neutral. Some are borderline or arguable. A good test: Can you imagine Che Guevara saying with a straight face, "I think I'll go and start fomenting revolution now"? Can you imagine Che's detractors saying, "I don't like the man -- all he does is give birth to revolution"? A neutral term should be able to fit naturallly into both these sentences.

  • Positive: foster, advance, launch, arouse, evoke, enkindle, give birth to.
  • Negative: foment, incite, inflame, ferment.
  • Neutral: sow, initiate, cultivate, bring about, cause, engineer, induce, precipitate, elicit, advance, encourage, stimulate, spur, whip up, promote, trigger, generate, incubate.

I particularly like "initiate", "stimulate" and "promote", but many of the others in the neutral list are OK too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and would vote for engineer or elicit.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Those are fine. I think there are about 3 places in the article such words are used, so we could use 3 different words for variety. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Coppertwig

  • "embarked on a journey" is OK but somewhat grand-sounding. "embarked" also tends to imply by boat. Did he actually travel much by boat? Actually, it's a bit of an oxymoron, since "journey" seems to me to imply travel by land. I would replace the phrase with the more concise "traveled". (with one l in American spelling, I think.)
I've done this. Also I should add that there was a rather misleading wikilink there. I've eliminated this (and similar ones in the lead). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "these trips": All that has been mentioned so far is "a journey" (singular). (Can a single journey comprise more than one trip?) Is this meant to include his "Second Voyage (1953-56)?" Using "traveled" as mentioned above would solve this.
Done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "meeting important leaders": the word "important" sounds odd, and possibly POV, here. I'm not sure what to replace it with. "meeting heads of state" doesn't mean exactly the same. "meeting prominent people" . "meeting international leaders".
  • "Along with traveling around the world meeting important leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism, he was a prolific writer of an assortment of books," The first half of the sentence, and the earlier part of the paragraph, are talking about a particular time period when he was in Cuba after the revolution. (1957-65). The second half of the sentence seems to refer to a larger segment of his life -- or did he write most of his books during that period? Anyway, I find the jump to the second half of the sentence disorienting.
  • Style of cref notes: I guess I wasn't paying attention for a while. Somebody modified the text so that the little superscript words which are links to the content notes actually form parts of the sentences. I oppose this usage because the font is small so it looks funny. Superscripts should be in addition to the text, the way the little superscript numbers are with the ref tags, not instead of part of the text. There may be another way to do these, using links that look something like these ones: [[#refAnderson1997|Anderson 1997]], if it's desired to have the links as part of the text -- although then they would look like regular wikilinks and there would be nothing to clue the reader that it's a link within the page rather than to another page. Are there any other examples of usage of this template on other pages? Note that we're famous: the Template:cref page lists this page as an example of usage! (So we'd better get it right!!) I suggest that the Content note links be renamed to "a", "b" "c" etc. instead of "birth", "Basque" etc. (except that that will make it hard to add new ones!) or else that they simply be put back the way they were, i.e. as extra words in superscript appended to full sentences in normal font.
These cref notes are utterly unhelpful, in my view: they are idiosyncratic and very hard to edit. I say they should go. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I restored the square brackets around "him" in the quote "perfect himself". I believe the original says "perfect myself", so it would be misquoting to simply quote it as "perfect himself". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations needed: re "weekly shirt" and "chancho" nickname; and re Irish descent. We had a ref for the Irish descent earlier but it wasn't a very good one.
  • Adolescence: I find there are too many lists of authors he read. The last two sentences are good, because they mention several authors without being merely lists; they give interesting information. Maybe something similar could be done with the earlier lists of authors: reducing slightly the number of authors mentioned and adding a few words about what type of author they were or what he got out of them. This reminds me of stuff I read in Cormier when they were in the Sierra Maestra, that Che was reading a lot, and also writing, and received a shipment of books.
  • "Guevara wrote that it was during this bloody confrontation that he laid down his medical supplies and picked up a box of ammunition dropped by a fleeing comrade, finalizing his symbolic transition from physician to combatant." I thought I had commented on this but can't find my comment. Cormier quotes Guevara re this incident, and it seems to me that he doesn't lay down medical supplies but makes a choice as to which to pick up, and that the symbolic significance is slightly overstated here as compared to what Guevara actually said. I suggest "It was during this bloody confrontation that Guevara, unable to carry both, faced the dilemma of picking up a box of medical supplies or one of ammunition: to be a physician or a revolutionary; he chose the ammunition."
  • "It is estimated that several hundred people were executed on Guevara's orders during this time": I suggest changing this to "Several hundred executions under Guevara's orders are documented during this time; it has been claimed that Guevara was responsible for the deaths of thousands." with footnote to Grant 2007 to support the "thousands". (However, it would probably be better to get information from Daniel James.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel's Documentary

Recently the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Communism) released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend that all editors watch it if they have the chance, as it helps give you a basic overview of his life and the accomplishments/controversy's surrounding it.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation style, redux

As per Sandy's FAR comments, can we standardize the nonstandard citation style in this article? I've disliked it since the first second I laid eyes on it, and that would be true regardless of the article's topic... but I have been operating under the assumption that it reflected some sort of special consensus arrived at earlier... Is that the case..? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I was about to change it, but decided to come over to the talk page first. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I welcome suggestions about citation style. I'd appreciate a chance to discuss any changes in citation style before they're implemented. See also sections above: Talk:Che Guevara#Citation style, Talk:Che Guevara#Summary of (proposed) changes to citation style, and the 5th point ("Style of cref notes") in Talk:Che Guevara#Comments from Coppertwig. I'm glad to see more people getting involved in editing this article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As I note, I already made the change as it seemed to have achieved consensus. The "content notes" were a mess in any case: many of them were orphaned; others had little or nothing to do with the matter at hand; at least one was pure plagiarism. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't all that fond of the content notes, though I did express at least one reason for keeping them in the sections I mentioned above. (I'm accustomed to ref tags and citation templates as at Circumcision.) For future reference when working with other articles, note that the WP:MOS indicates that no one citation style is standard on Wikipedia and that citation styles should not be changed without good reason etc. Also, please wait at least 24 hours (or more) for me to comment before assuming something on this page has consensus. If the change sticks, please edit the documentation of Template:cref, which points to this article as an example of usage of that template, which it no longer does. However, I hope this comment from me doesn't discourage you from continuing to edit the article! Welcome. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I recognize that there are a variety of citation styles on Wikipedia. There did seem, however, to be almost universal dislike for the style employed here. Which seemed reason enough to go and change it. You should also feel free to edit Template:cref. I've made a bunch of other changes, as you can see, and commented on some of them on this talk page. I think they either go with consensus already established here, or are uncontroversial. If you or any other of the editors of this article feel otherwise, then I would be happy to discuss them at further length here. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, I guess you were probably right that there was consensus for the change in citation format!! (Including me agreeing with it!) Maybe we just needed somebody bold enough to actually make the change. I certainly don't want to discourage you from editing. I'm just starting to look at your changes and everything looks fine so far. If I do disagree with some, I still hope you'll continue to participate! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've done a lot of work! It all looks fine to me. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would sure hope it looks fine. My edits have been very (small c) conservative. But thanks for the thumbs-up! As I've just mentioned at FAR, as well as on the talk page here, I really don't see much in the way of POV issues here. But even so, this article still needs an awful lot of work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Very many of the works listed under "References" are in fact unreferenced in the article itself. I propose deleting them forthwith. We could copy them over here, to the talk page, if people wanted some kind of record. And it's true that some of these references should be used--most obviously, in my view, the Paco Ignacio Taibo II biography. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see above that this has already been suggested (apparently more than once). So let's do it... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on a somewhat different point: Why on earth does the list of Guevara's own writings consist only in translations? This is very misleading. It would make more sense to have a list of this own publications, with dates (and in chronological order), in Spanish, with information on translations as and where available. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not POV

I've spent some time with this article now, and made a bunch of edits, with further comments in the edit summaries. I should say that as far as I can see, POV is really the least of its concerns. (Which is not to say there are no POV problems, just that they are overshadowed by other issues.) This may well be a credit to the editors who have recently worked on it. But now there is still much to do in terms of producing a coherent and well-referenced article. At present it is mostly just badly written and insufficiently referenced. I probably do not have much time, but am willing to lend a hand from time to time. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Jbmurray

You have greatly improved the article, and I agree with 100 % of your recent and numerous edits. I hope that you will find more time to continue your outstanding contributions.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I don't have much time, but am prepared to help as and when I can. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

adolescent intellectual pursuits

Regarding these edits. I would argue that they are un-necessary. They provide a lot of detail regarding what Redthoreau rightly calls CG's "adolescent intellectual pursuits." I'd suggest that we don't need such detail: it's enough to know he was a voracious reader as a youth, across a wide literary and philosophical range. NB I was on the verge earlier also of deleting the fact that he played chess. In the article's current, reduced, size, do we need to know that?

I say this especially given that the article at present has very little (practically nothing) about his mature political and philosophical beliefs. If anything needs expansion, it's here.

But rather than reverting the above edits, I thought I'd raise the issue here first. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, I can see your points, but I believe that his love for Chess is relevant - because he would later encourage that the game be taught to Cuban children, believed the skills required were analogous to “warfare” in a strategic way, and he himself would hold tournaments, and even played the famed Bobby Fisher by telephone. As for his intellectual pursuits ... I believe they are extremely relevant in the sense that what he was reading at age 13-18 ... helped form the foundation for why his Motorcycle trip was so influential and transformational to his thought process when he was 21, and why he believed the way he did when he was 25-27 and decided to take up arms for the first time as a Guerrilla. I believe that the article should represent that he was not the "stereotypical" armed insurgent ... in that his origins was as a well educated and poetic intellectual ... which may go against a laymen’s conventional wisdom when researching him at the start. Moreover, he later meets and is complimented by Sartre as the "most complete human being of our age" when just 15 years earlier ... he was reading Sartre as a student. His wide range of knowledge helps explain why he could easily win over such intellectual heavyweights, as Sartre, Beauvoir, Debray, etc. It also formed the genesis of why he believed it was possible to create a “New Man”, driven by “moral” than material incentives. But what are your thoughts on this ??? … as I obviously have expressed my high regard for your efforts and judgment.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think mentioning chess is important, because it shows intellectual development that can factor into planning battle strategy as an adult. Other intellectual pursuits also important to mention, but I'm not sure how much detail is needed. Rather than a long list of authors he read, I'd rather see sentences that say a few interesting words about each of a few authors, to make it more interesting and more meaningful for people who may not be familiar with those authors. I.e. I like the current last 2 sentences more than some of the earller sentences that list a number of authors. In the Sierra Maestra, he is described as having spent a lot of time reading and writing, and received at least one shipment of books. (I thought I had posted a message like this many days ago but don't see it so maybe I forgot to click Save page.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara/Archive_17&oldid=1144089793"