Talk:Che Guevara/All-11to15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Target 2 Adolescent Revolutionary Romanticism 3 Guevara's Tactics 4 Why so little mention of Guevara's bad side? 5 Disappearance from Cuba section 6 Minor change in the spelling of 'che' 7 Vilasuso? 8 Humanitarian 9 Removing Posts 10 Che's purges redux 11 Was Guevara included among the crew of Granma to function as an executioner? 12 new details 13 Legends 14 Che's family history 15 Template 16 Inadequate sourcing

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is Archive_11 covering approximately 28 December 2006 - 16 February 2007

Talk archives for Che Guevara (current talk page)
<< 1		All-11to15		11 >>

Target

Is it just me or are the repeated attempts to insert information about an American retail store removing Guevara's image from some product or other of marginal relevance to this article? I understand that many editors are from the United States, but - as I have written often on these pages - these additions give the rest of us the impression that we are sleeping with the elephant. Meaning that minor twitches in one corner of the world are magnified well out of proportion. As this "factoid" is of little interest to me, or I imagine the vast majority of people in the world who also know or care very little about American retail habits, perhaps these references are better suited to the Che Guevara in popular culture page.--Zleitzen 12:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see any record of repeated attempts in the talk pages, but if there's been an edit war going on here, just let me know. I'm anxious to open discussion about it mostly because it is directly tied into (and even contradicts) the material in that section of the article. The Che Gueveara in popular culture article isn't really appropriate since it doesn't really discuss the implications of any of the appearances and is really just more of a listing of places his name has appeared. I'll agree that the factoid is American-centric, but I don't know how much of the global Che Guevara cult is truly global. It certainly has a large presence in the US. I'm not going to fight for its inclusion, but I was shocked to see that the page didn't mention it. Mikeliveshere 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The info had been added 2-3 times before to the article and removed. I would summize that the Guevara legacy is indeed global, and is perhaps at its least potent in the United States for obvious reasons (it was operatives representing the government of that nation that hunted him down}. Within the third world, and especially Latin America, Guevara's political focus is very much alive and contemporary, independent of the opinions of a few Western leftists. One of the reasons I am reticent about the new information is that this truth, Guevara's almost universal popularity in the world outside the US, is barely reflected at all, which places the actions of a US retail store in sharp perspective. Sometimes it seems to me as though we are editing articles about the Dali Llama on the Chinese wikipedia. --Zleitzen 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, how would you feel about its inclusion in Che Guevara (photo). I think it's important to talk about the current perception of Che and that this is a good case study of that in America, but I agree that it is only tangentially related to Che and his politics, which means it could be inappropriate for a page that deals mostly with his history. Mikeliveshere 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Adolescent Revolutionary Romanticism

I think that it's probably true that Che's current popularity is mostly a symptom of the cited adolescent revolutionary romanticism. What I'm curious about is how that interacts with the recent Target controversy that I added to the article. I think this controversy is fairly notable and contributes to the analysis of current perception of Che, and it doesn't really fit in with the Che in pop culture article, so I put it in here. If you hate it, revert it, but I think it's important. My only concern is that it's right next to a sentence that says the image has lost its political connotation, which I think this disproves...seems to contradict itself. Anyone wanna help me fix this up? Also, I (poorly) edited some surrounding text to diminish the contradiction. Mikeliveshere 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, I personally do not find it notable that a store in the US rejects the image of Guevara, I feel that it says as much about the individual political culture of the US as it does about Guevara's legacy. I'm not sure how the Target story contradicts anything previously on the page, but I just find it requires a leap of imagination for non-US readers who are not fully familiar with the importance of this, to imagine why this is an issue of any great concern. I think the analysis of relevant intellectuals is important, and a broad study of the legacy amongst cultures is of interest, whilst this story is just too parochial.--Zleitzen 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zleitzen on this point. If the position of Target re Guevara's image is going to be discussed in the CG article, shouldn't we also ascertain and include that of Walmart (and perhaps those of BestBuy, Sears, etc.) And then it would no doubt be necessary to add in the views of comparable stores throughout the world so as to avoid geographic bias. This is rapidly spiralling downwards into absurdity and, in my opinion, detracts from -- and diminishes the quality of -- this Wikipedia article. -- Polaris999 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates a broad(er) study of the legacy amongst cultures. I don't think we need to list the position of every retail store, but at least multiple cultures. It's not the store that's rejecting the image, but the people. The article says the image has 'long since shed its political connotations' and I think this proves that that's probably not so true. Plus, the reference that it comes from talks primarily about his American legacy (Madonna, Andy Warhol). In fact, the only thing it says about any Latin American legacy is that he's been mostly forgotten, except by leftist guerilla groups, which seems to suggest that it still has every political connotation it once did. I think a really good section on legacy would explain this. Mikeliveshere 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikeliveshere, I implore you to make the additions you suggest to the section in question. -- Polaris999 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. If I did, it would probably read something to the effect of "After his death, Che Guevara became a mainstream icon for Americans, seemingly stripped of politicial connotations. (then cite the Observer article that's already there) Nevertheless, recent works Jon Lee Anderson, Régis Debray, Jorge Castañeda and others have continued to demystify the image of Guevara..." (and then maybe show that these works are having real world implications by citing the Target example.) In Cuba, Che's symbol endures as a political symbol to represent Communist ideals. In other parts of the globe, Guevara's ideological legacy is kept alive only by a few remaining leftist guerilla movements in places such as Mexico or the Congo." The problem is that I'm not sure how true this is. It's pretty much a verbatim quote of The Observer article referenced on the page, but I'm sure other sources that acknowledge the events Zleitzen talks about would disagree. Mikeliveshere 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the contradiction Mike speaks about. The articles states "[some believe] the image has long since shed its political connotations". We are discussing whether his image appears on a CD cover or not in an American store. I would consider that issue to have zero connection with Guevara's political positions of anti-imperialism, statism, revolution, anti-US capitalism etc. Therefore it seems to me that to even have the debate supports the statement that his image has indeed shed its political connotations, at least in North America or perhaps Western Europe. As for the Latin American legacy, I don't know who wrote that Guevara's legacy has been mostly forgotten, but they obviously haven't been following the news over the last 6-7 years. The Sandinistas just regained power last month in the latest of a series of events that could trace roots directly back to Guevara's methods and ideology. Whilst in Argentina, Hugo Chavez and Castro recently visited Guevara's home and paid tribute surrounded by 1000s of chanting supporters. Evo Morales has been seen wearing a Guevara T-shirt and quoting him to crowds etc. These people are not adolescent romantics nor guerillas, in fact they are some of the most powerful and important people in the hemisphere. As far as I can tell, the legacy has been reduced to quibbles about CD covers in the North-West, but is very much alive in Latin America. Whether people like it or not. Perhaps this contrast is something to be explored?--Zleitzen 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

After 24 hours, I've reverted the edits because I personally like the original article more than my own edits. I was hoping someone would take my edits and run with them to include more discussion of modern-day perception. I would say this is probably difficult because it involves making sweeping generalizations about various cultures. However, the referenced article from The Observer suggests two things that we can both agree just aren't true: 1) In the United States, Che Guevara's image has been stripped of political implications by (for example) Madonna and Andy Warhol. The branding is still controversial, and I believe it becomes more controversial every day as true awareness starts to spread. 2) The article also suggests that Che's memory is completely forgotten in most LA countries aside from leftist fringe groups.

That being said, I'll admit that my interest in Che is primarily to learn about "The Cult of Che" and the branding. I'm interested to know more about whether or not Che is romanticized globally or exclusively in the US by "adolecent revolutionary romantics." The American perception is hotly split by people who want to treat Che mythically (and usually show some disregard for his history) and people who think those people are ignorantly worshipping a mass murderer. The only source that Wiki links to on the subject of branding is dominated by what I would say is out-of-date information on American perception and what is probably a complete error about him on an international level. So Zleitzen, any chance we can cite some information about the Sandinistas or Evo Morales to get a better understanding of the true legacy? As it stands, the article seems to talk more about his legacy in the '70s than his present-day legacy. Mikeliveshere 07:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikeliveshere, I think that an exploration of perceptions of Guevara in various parts of the world would be extremely interesting — although beyond the scope of this article, the length of which has already drawn some criticism. How would you feel about creating a "linked" (child) article with a title such as "The Cult of Che" or "Perceptions of Che Guevara"? Or, if you prefer, we could set up a sandbox here within the Talk: Che Guevara pages where a draft could be developed to the point where it would merit article status? -- Polaris999 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can come up with. Let me do some more research and brainstorm a little bit. :) Mikeliveshere 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given it some thought, and having read some of the discussions below, have added an additional paragraph detailing some of the points discussed above. It appears that the impact of Guevara, and his position in the Latin American pantheon - probably the most important aspect of his legacy - appears to be overlooked and apparently unknown to many in the wider world. So I have re-added reference to the Target CD case and hopefully contrasted it with the response from the Bolivarians and so on.--Zleitzen 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Guevara's Tactics

It would seem to me that Guevara's tactics were faulty and failed (thank G-d) for a number of reasons that include: (1) once it was clear that if the military of each country surrendered as in Cuba they would be executed, thus these militaries fought to the death; (2) Guevara despised and ignored the need for supporting militia (e.g. Escopeteros; (3) the preparation of his guerrillas in Cuba was often faulty (e.g. indigenous languages chosen were often incorrect for the area of action); (4) the personnel chosen were often ("White") or at least not indigenous to the area of action; (5) weapons and tactics of his opponents changed and improved, especially due to the Vietnam experience and above all his ideology of hate, his insistence on rigid ideological "purity" and a propensity to attempt to solve all problems through executions was alien to Latin American traditions. Documentation of this will follow in the next few days. El Jigue 12-28-06

Z: One of the best references on the bloody failure of the Guevaran approach to guerrilla warfare in Guatemala is: Le Bot, Yvon 1997 La guerra en tierras mayas (War in Mayan Lands). Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico D.F ISBN-10 9681645375, ISBN-13 978-9681645373

or if you prefer it in French: Lebot, Yvon 1992 La guerre en terre maya: Communauté, violence et modernité au Guatemala, 1970-1992 Editions Karthala. Paris ISBN-10 286537369X, ISBN-13 978-2865373697

Although this book gives too much credence to Rigoberta Menchú at the time it was written Menchú's little changes to history were not well known.

El Jigue 1-2-07

Terribly one-sided, as always. Oh, and for your information: I've checked that title with my professors (I am a student of history, Leiden University, Holland), and the author is noted for doing a horribly unprofessional job in that 'work'. Kindly come up with a better example of your slanted views. 82.176.211.33 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm perhaps you might address and give examples of the specific errors your professors see in that book. El Jigue 1-7-067

Why so little mention of Guevara's bad side?

I posted a few sentences that mentioned Guevara's actions at La Cabana prison and the fact that he created Cuba's prison camps. I also cited an external source. This seems much better than the current statement that he was appointed to various posts in the Cuban government. The current version makes it seem like he was just some innocent bureaucrat.

I don't see why someone deleted my changes, unless you are determined to preserve the hero-worship flavor of the current article.

~Mike W.

I can't see anywhere in the history of the article where you edited it under your IP number which is how you are currently editing. Perhaps it was not this article. I urge you to get an account which gives you easy access to history and a watchlist.--Dakota 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

This is a rather common occurence with regards to this article. I've noticed other past edits backed up by excellent sources, reverted very quickly, with condemnations coming against those who expanded the information here. Unfortunately, it seems as though most information that casts any sort of light deemed "negative" is wiped out.

Goatboy95 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And that, is a shame. Che Guevara, has faults like anyone else. If backed by excellent sources? 'negative' findings, do indeed belong on this article. GoodDay 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While Ché was "responsible" for every trial that occurred in La Cabaña (as every case had to be aproved by him), much of the information regarding it has been wildly exagerated (by several sources, but Ché was mainly demonized by cuban exiles, at least back in the day, even to ridiculous levels, some were exagerations while other down right fabrications), first he did not conducted any trial or execution himself nor were civilians ever executed there (of the two trial houses, house 1 was for militars and police members and executed several of them, the second one was for civilians and it didnt executed any of them). Such events were compared to the trials of Nuremberg by Castro himself when he recieved criticism regarding the executions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.74 (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

It may not always be the case, but the vast majority of the "sources" attached to such comments which other editors have deleted come from decisively anti-cuban and anti-communist webistes who in turn have not provided any sources for their articles. In which case they are far from "excellent sources" and fall foul of the Wikipedia verifiable sources policy. Such comments should be quite rightly deleted unless a verifiable source can be obtained. Canderra 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Define anti-Cuba (note the upper case in Cuban) and since when was being anti-communist a crime or proof of bias (note lower case communist) El Jigue 1-18-07

I think the term anti-Cuban is pretty self-obvious. I never said anything at all to imply being anti-communist was a crime either. It is obviously proof of bias though! Any research done by anti-communist groups should be subject to the same extra levels of scrutiny as that done by pro-communist groups as both are likely to have attempted to 'twist' the facts. Canderra 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One ponders if it is merely POV to consider anti-Cuba as equivalent to ant-Castro. El Jigue 1-21-07

I see you point that if taken literally the term doesn't quite make sense however it is a common convention to refer to a distinctive regime by the name of the nation. Canderra 18:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"first he did not conducted any trial or execution himself nor were civilians ever executed there"

Hmmm, a fewllow named "Ruben," with whom I grew up would tend to disagree with that statement as he was a civilian executed at La Cabana. Actually, I remember the day his mother, wife and I went to see him for the last time. We heard the shots that killed him as we left the fort. Not quite sure where you found that information but, figured, in honor of those killed there, that this fact should be known. That's not to say that I don't understand where you're coming from - we've had 40-plus years of propaganda coming out of the island so, your misconseption is certainly explainable. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

Regards,

Goatboy95 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance from Cuba section

There are six paragraphs about Guevara "disappearing". This may have made sense in 1965 as it was a secret then, well, it wasn't really, as said later on - "Despite the fact that Guevara sought to conceal his presence in the Congo, the U.S. government was fully aware of his location and activities: The National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting all of his incoming and outgoing transmissions via equipment aboard the USNS Valdez, a floating listening post which continuously cruised the Indian Ocean off Dar-es-Salaam for that purpose." The US knew exactly where Guevara was, but that certainly didn't stop Voice of America etc. from spreading rumors that Guevara was jailed by Castro, there was a split in the Cuban leadership etc. Six paragraphs of uncited rumor from decades ago, which has been shown to be baseless conjecture doesn't warrant being in here. Even if it wasn't cited. "Castro's critics sometimes say his explanations for Guevara's disappearance have always been suspect (see below), and many found it surprising that Guevara never announced his intentions publicly, but only through an undated and uncharacteristically obsequious letter to Castro." Guevara announced his intentions not to remain in Cuba before he even landed in Cuba, this sort of thing is quite silly. Ruy Lopez 07:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor change in the spelling of 'che'

"Che" is not spelled chê or ché in Portuguese, but as tchê, and only like that. I know it because I'm from southern Brazil and use the expression frequently. The old text and the new one are down here.

"It was during this period that he acquired his famous nickname, "Che", due to his frequent use of the Argentine interjection [[Che]] (pronounced /tʃe/), which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are employed colloquially in various English-speaking countries. Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and southern Brazil (where the interjection is rendered 'chê' or 'ché' in written Portuguese) are the only areas where this expression is used, making it a trademark of the Rioplatense region".

"It was during this period that he acquired his famous nickname, "Che", due to his frequent use of the Argentine interjection [[Che]] (pronounced /tʃe/), which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are employed colloquially in various English-speaking countries. Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and southern Brazil (where the interjection is rendered 'tchê' in written Portuguese) are the only areas where this expression is used, making it a trademark of the Rioplatense region".

MBhvilar 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have a repeat of your posting? GoodDay 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vilasuso?

How reliable is Vilasuso's story about La Cabaña?, aparently he was a lawyer working there, but other than that, this is the only observation made in that particular section, no figures, no npov information, just the opinnion of one man, NPOV?:

(regarding La Cabaña) "According to José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara"

But why is the opinnion of one man that important to be placed here?, one quick look at the source will lead us that is from an anti-communist site [1], specialising in nothing but reader digest-like stories about cuban repression. Even though Vilasuso's own story has even been discredited by Gustavo Carmona, who was one of the prisoners in La Cabaña[2].

Though the source may indeed appear partisan, I don't think there is any doubt amongst mainstream scholars - including various leftist sources - that the trials were hastily constructed and would fail most standard legal principles. I believe there were various attempts to impose due process, but the conditions of the immediate post revolution era were such that this made little impression. I think the trials could fairly be described as summary. It should be noted however, that the climate of "drive through justice" was severely influenced by the memory of the violent chaos of the post-Machado period in the 1930s, where lawless retributions were rife. It was considered that the speedy trials and executions in 1959, including the stadium trials, were methods to prevent greater lawlessness and deter citizens from seeking their own retributions against Batista informants and other individuals.--Zleitzen 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"How reliable is Vilasuso's story about La Cabaña?" That's like asking "How reliable is your source saying the Earth orbits the sun? LOL

Goatboy95 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One has only to read "La Ley de la Sierra" to understand that these "trials" were carried out with systemic bias in favor of the prosecution [3] [4] [5]. "De acuerdo a la ley de la Sierra, se juzgaban hechos sin consideración de principios jurídicos generales. El derecho de Habeas Corpus había sido suprimido.

Las declaraciones del oficial investigador constituían pruebas irrefutables. El abogado defensor limitaba su acción a admitir las acusaciones aunque invocando la generosidad del gobierno, solicitaba una disminución de la condena. Por aquellos días Guevara era visible con su boina negra, tabaco ladeado, rostro cantinflesco, y brazo en cabestrillo. Estaba sumamente delgado y en el hablar pausado y frío, dejaba entrever su "posse" de eminencia gris y total sujección a la teoría marxista. En su despacho, se reunían numerosas personas discutiendo acaloradamente sobre la marcha del proceso revolucionario. Sin embargo, su conversación solía cargarse de ironía, nunca mostró alteración de temperamento y tampoco atendía criterios dispares. A más de un colega lo amonestó en privado, en público a todos: su consigna era de dominio público. "No demoren las causas, esto es una revolución, no usen métodos legales burgueses, las pruebas son secundarias. Hay que proceder por convicción. Es una pandilla de crimnales, asesinos. Además, recuerden que hay un tribunal de Apelación." El tribunal nunca declaró con lugar un recurso, confirmaba las sentencias de oficio y lo presidía el comandante Ernesto Guevera Serna." [6] El Although personal memories are not allowed here I can testify it was that way Jigue 1-16-07

This should be in English; see Wikipedia: Talk page. GoodDay 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Translation via Babelfish reveals little sense but at least it is in English:

"According to the law of the Mountain range, facts without consideration of general legal principles were judged. The right of Habeas Corpus had been suppressed. The declarations of the investigating officer constituted irrefutables tests. The defense counsel limited his action to admit the accusations although invoking the generosity of the government, he asked for a diminution of the sentence. By those days Guevara he was visible with his black beret, tipped tobacco, cantinflesco face, and arm in cabestrillo. He was extremely thin and in slow and cold speaking, posse "of gray eminence let glimpse his" and total attachment to the Marxist theory. In their office, numerous people met heatedly discussing on the march of the revolutionary process. Nevertheless, its conversation used to load itself of irony, it never showed alteration of temperament and it did not take care of criteria either different. To more of a colleague she admonished it in private, in public to all: its slogan era of public dominion. "they do not delay the causes, this is a revolution, do not use bourgeois legal methods, the tests are secondary. It is necessary to come by conviction. She is a gang of crimnales, assassins. In addition, they remember that there is a court of Appeal." The court never declared with place a resource, confirmed the office sentences and commander Ernesto Guevera Serna presided over." [ 7 ] the personal Although memories plows not allowed here I dog testify it was that way".

As always, sources for this 'source' (which I am not familiar with and from the wording implies at least some bias) must be validated. One person's opinion over one particular trial does not offer proof that the original claim is true, nor is that quite what seems to be being said in the above passage ' (whatever that is, maybe the Spanish version makes more sense). An interesting passage none the less. Canderra 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aureliano: Were it worthwhile I might translated it but it seems that were I to do that it would be immediately erased. As it stands now in Wikipedia another language can be used if no other reference in"English could satisfactorily replace it El Jigue 1-21-07

Maybe it wouldn't have been erased, Little Joe. GoodDay 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian

Editors keep adding the category "humanitarian" to this article. I've removed it once, perhaps other users could better explain why this isn't really appropriate. Indeed Guevara went to work in a leper colony in his younger days, but by the early 60s he had been responsible for making various calls which accelerated near nuclear war, insulted and abused many of his subordinates, personally shot people in the head etc. He was been described as arrogant, brutal and overly aggressive even by his closest confidants. We're not talking about Mother Theresa here. --Zleitzen 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Posts

On January 16, 2007 anon user 200.28.199.74 removed the section Why is this guy so beloved? on this talk page. Though his methods may have been good-intentioned (and possible correct), should an anon-user have the right to remove other editors postings? GoodDay 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aureliano: would it be malicious to say that that was their faith and profession. el Jigue 1-21-06

Not quite sure what you're saying? Little Joe. GoodDay 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Has this section been replaced yet? El Jigue 1-22-07

The Removing Posts section hasn't been 'erased' (obviously), the Why is this guy so Beloved section was 'erased' on January 16th, 2007 (see 'histoy' of this 'talk page'). My point was & is, should any editors have the right to remove other editors postings. Yes or No. GoodDay 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer is 'NO'. I've givin' advice to that anon-user (200.28.199.74), not to remove posts again. GoodDay 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Aureliano but with that stuff be re-inserted. El Jigue 1-26-07

Not entirely sure what you've said. Contact the anon-user, give him you views. GoodDay 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Che's purges redux

There is an academic reference at [7] which supports at least in part what I stated previously about the Che's purges in the Sierra. El Jigue 1-21-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

I have read Julia Sweig's book and used it as a reference before, EJ. I highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it, as it covers a lot of the Frank País arena. Though I don't remember reading anything about Guevara murdering the non-ideological in the Sierra, nor does she detail any of the rumors you have discussed concerning País's death. Given that Julia E. Sweig is one of the leading historical authorities on the Cuban revolution anywhere, and has written and spoken about events in much detail many times, perhaps you could contact her with these revelations and perhaps, oversights.--Zleitzen 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Z: The trouble with theSweig book is unbalanced source material. This deficiency is discribed in: Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground.(Book Review) The Historian - June 22, 2004 Luis Martinez-Fernandez

Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground. By Julia E. Sweig. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Pp. xv, 254. $29.95.)

This review starts “Few, if any, t.....”

but the critical part of this review is:

"The bulk of the documentary evidence sustaining the book consists of hundreds of documents housed at the Cuban Council of State’s Office of Historic Affairs, which the Cuban government made available to Sweig while keeping the archive’s doors closed to other researchers. This valuable and fascinating collection of documents allowed the author to paint a well-documented and nuanced perspective on llano- sierra relations as well as on how the leaders of the 26th of July Movement related to other anti-Batista figures. These sources are complimented by much of the extant historiography on the insurrection and around twenty interviews that Sweig conducted in Cuba. Although the able use of the Council of State’s documents stands as one of the book’s most salient contributions, the admittedly sanitized nature of the document collection and the author’s failure to interview voices beyond those loyal to the Castro regime produces a somewhat distorted picture of the events and a more favorable portrayal of Castro. The correspondence between Castro and former president Carlos Prío Socarrás, for example, which was withheld from the author, would have most likely exposed the politiquero (politically opportunistic) side of Castro. Contrary to Sweig’s conclusion that Castro was opposed to politiquería, while scolding Hart and others for overtures to Cuba’s politicians, three years earlier he had maneuvered to secure for himself Havana’s mayoralty in exchange for supporting Justo Carrillo, leader of the Agrupación Montecristi, who at the time appeared most likely to emerge as the post-Batista leading figure. Likewise, had Sweig interviewed and/or used sources written by key protagonists who are not Castro supporters such as Colonel Ramón Barquín, Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo, Carlos Franqui, Huber Matos, and Gustavo Arcos, to name only five, she would have produced a more accurate and balanced view of the Cuban insurrection. Unfortunately, such manifestations of Miami-phobia plague much of the scholarship on Cuba. Despite these problems in terms of the selection of sources, Sweig’s book is an important and useful contribution for the understanding of the struggle against Batista." by Rutgers University's Luis Martínez-Fernández "

El Jigue 1-22-07

Was Guevara included among the crew of Granma to function as an executioner?

Usually an executioner is either anonymous (e.g. hooded) or has a background distant from his victims. For this reason foreigners are often given this function. And it is anomalous for a chosen executioner not to have a previous "kill" before assuming that "job." When one reads of the preparations to sail in the Granma to Cuba, apparently there were a few executions or attempts to execute in which Guevara played a major role. In addition, Guevara's record in Guatemala has gaps which might suggest such. Will provide citations later. El Jigue 1-26-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Fuentes, Norberto 2004 La Autobiografía de Fidel Castro. Destino Ediciones. Barcelona, Editora Planeta Mexicana, Mexico D.F. ISBN 8423336042. ISBN 9707490012 pp. 695-696 Lists four "traitors" secretly executed before the Granma left Mexico these were Jesus Bello Melgarejo, Arturo Avalos Marcos, Cirilio Guerra plus a fourth unnamed individual. One was said executed by Raul Castro. This leaves three who could have been executed by the Che. Now I do not completely trust Fuentes as a source, not because he does not know, but because he follows "line" that is suspiciously closer to the present Cuban government official dogma than I would like. BTW on page 692 Joaquin Ordoqui, is quoted as saying the Antonio Blanco Rico, Batista's chief of Military Intelligence (who was assassinated in Havana before Castro landed in 1956) was a member of the Cuban Communist Party. This can be taken to suggest that the Cuban communist party as usual was playing both sides of the fence. On page 696 this author states that Guevara was in Mexico for two years and three months which is sufficient time for quite a lot of things. El Jigue 1-27-07

Thanks again EJ, more food for thought and this information has been noted. Apparently, the graves of those executed in Mexico remain to this day. I understood those executions to be the responsibility of Fidel's "council" and I might be wrong but at least one of these men was executed by Fidel himself. I'm not sure if Guevara, who was not yet an integral figure at that time was directly involved. This would be an area that I imagine Polaris would have some further details on.--Zleitzen 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

new details

There is a new reference (unfortunately for some in Spanish):

Arzuaga, Javier 2006 (accessed 1-29-07) Complete Radio interview on executions in la Cabaña in 1959 and related topics interviewed by Guillermo Toledo and others on El Programa Radial Magazine Cubano on 12-17-06. Transcript from ContactCuba. Com [8]

This reference has a number of odd spellings (e.g. Autilio instead of Eutimio) however, it contains novel information such as the execution of the killers in the Humbolt 7 murders, an event we know now to have been triggered by a communist party informant ("Marquito" I think). While the death of Ariel Lima a 16 year old, and anti-Batista resistance activist, who had turned informer to avoid the rape of his mother, was immediate. This together with such known Guevara acts as keeping BRAC files secret, strongly suggests that the Che was interested in "whitewashing" communist party's colaboration with Batista by informing on other resistance leaders. In addition the previously cited attribution of communist party affiliation (by Fuentes) of Colonel Blanco Rico the head of Batista Military Intelligence (SIM), also detracts from the credibility of details in Guevara's accounts of the war against Batista, and can be taken to suggest the possibility of bias beyond that of an expected military leader's self-serving statements. Another interesting statement found in this reference is the suggestion that partisans of Raul Castro are at present trying (as mentioned before) to burden Guevara with Raul's own actions. There is reference to Arzuaga's new book "Cuba 1959: La Galera de la muerte" which I have not yet read. El Jigue 1-29-0617:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (most odd all I did was put in tildes)

A new investigation suggests that the remains, said be those of the Che, buried in Cuba are not authentic [9]. El Jigue2-3-07

Legends

Guevara is executed and his topless body goes on display. The article then states that "photographs taken at that time gave rise to legends such as those of San Ernesto de La Higuera and El Cristo de Vallegrande", and there is a link to this page, which is in foreign. This sentence has been widely copied and translated across the internet, but what does it mean? What are the legends of San Ernesto de La Higuera and El Cristo de Vallegrande? -Ashley Pomeroy 00:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Che's family history

Che has a family name of Lynch which can be traced back to his grahdmother on his father's side . His grandmother has roots in Co.Galway which is on the west coast of Ireland . His father was quoted one time saying his son has the rebel blood of an Irishman running through his veins . Che had a night out in Limerick on his way from Prague back to Cuba and it was reported he and his men arrived back at shannon airport with bunches of shamrock on there chest (it was close to St.Patricks Day) after having a few pint's of the black stuff . Buts lets not forget the Irish saying "NEVER LET THE TRUYH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY" . His name of Guavaero has its roots in the basque region of Spain which is another region famous for its rebel fighters . If you ask me its no wonder he became the revolutionary icon he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.134.187.17 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Template

Ernesto Guevara de la Serna
June 14, 1928 – October 9, 1967
Alberto Korda's famous photograph.
Alternate name:	Che
Date of birth:	June 14, 1928
Place of birth:	Rosario, Argentina
Date of death:	October 9, 1967
Place of death:	La Higuera, Bolivia
Major organizations:	26th of July Movement

I was wonder why is there no Template:Infobox revolution biography with image on this article, like on Martin Luther King, Jr.. It would look like this:

Furthermore can one use the Image:Famousphotoche.jpg (the famous Che Guevara photo) on this article under fair use? - C mon 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page did indeed have a template such as the above, but someone deleted the picture (albeit a cropped version) yesterday, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Please add your template to the page.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate sourcing

An excerpt from WP:IC:

'A number of Wikipedia articles have inline citations, and in the case of Featured Articles (formally "Brilliant Prose" articles), Featured Articles Candidates, Good Articles, Good Article Candidates, and (when applicable) A-Class Articles, inline citations are considered mandatory.'

This is a Featured Article and the information re sourcing provided by the statement included in the text of the article "an interview released by one of his household staff in a History Channel documentary about his life" does not meet the minimal standards set forth in Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style; I have therefore removed the material in question. Please view comparison here: [10] .

Polaris999 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 12

• Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 13

• Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 14

• Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 15