Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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_5 covering approximately 19 April 2006 - 30 May 2006

Talk archives for Che Guevara (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6 >	11 >>

Contents 1 Inaccuracies were introduced into the "Congo" section: Intentionally or Accidentally? 2 Portrait 3 Category: Atheists 4 Criticism 5 Meaning of term "Che" 6 Che T shirts 7 "Che" or "Ché"? 8 Removal of links 9 Alleged Uncertainty about Che's Birthdate 10 Links 10.1 Remark on labeling foreign-language links 11 Che the Murderer

Inaccuracies were introduced into the "Congo" section: Intentionally or Accidentally?

On 19 April 2006, User 68.9.241.233 pointed out via a note inserted into the text of the third paragraph of the "Congo" section of the Che article that the person referred to as directing a US Green Beret A-Team supposedly operating against Che in the Congo is actually a fictional character who appears in the series The Brotherhood of War written by author W.E.B. Griffin. I was interested to determine who had inserted the sentences referring to this character as if he were a real person and traced back through the HISTORY page until I found the point when the modification was made, and I will attach that information below:

Revision as of 13:05, 16 March 2006

South African mercenaries including Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the Congolese army to thwart Guevara. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.^[1][2][3] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.^[4] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.^[5] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.

Revision as of 13:25, 16 March 2006
TDC (Talk | contribs)
(→Congo)
Newer edit

A six man US Green Beret A-Team led by Lt Colonel Craig Lowell along with South African mercenaries including Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the Congolese army to thwart Guevara.

Lt Colonel Lowell convinced the Congolese that it would be better to not kill Guevara and turn him into a martyr, but to grind his forces down and humiliate the Cubans. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.^[6][7][8] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.^[9] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Additional information about the novel in question, i.e. The Brotherhood of War: Special Ops, Part 2, can be found at Audio-to-go.

Polaris999 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Griffin's military stories (as opposed to his spy and cop stories) are fictionalized history -- that is, he starts with facts then tweaks them into fiction. In the case of the Guevara book cited above, it is hard to know how much of the skeleton is accurate and at what point it goes off into fantasy. However, given Griffin's fascination and familiarity with the Congo and with Argentina, there is likely to be quite a bit of fact in with the fantasy.

That said, it is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE to get background for an encyclopedia article from a novel! Critic-at-Arms 07:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you have a good point here, I will try and verify what in Griffins book is correct. The newly formed Green Beret's were active in Congo in the mid 1960's, and were organizing local, Cuban ex-pats, and SA mercenaries to counter the Cuban presense, but you are right about the rest. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

Every time I stop by this article every few months, I see that the iconic image up as the portrait photo. We are supposed to be writing a biography about the real Guevara, not confusing him with the cult figure. I will get around to inserting a neutral photo, such as the ones appearing in these links [1] [2] 172 | Talk 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the photo you inserted IS neutral. Mariano(t/c) 11:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an AP photo, as opposed to something staged. The problem is that it's pretty small, grainy, and ugly. I couldn't find a better photo. Almost all the photos coming up in image searches were the famous iconic images. I'll try to find a better one pretty soon. 172 | Talk 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All other considerations aside, the photo you have inserted is of extremely poor quality. I will try to find one to replace it until such time as you or someone else comes up with another one. Polaris999 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think we should stick with the Korda photo. I'm a very visual person, and I do a lot my learning by association with images. For those like me, if I were to come to this article not knowing who Che was, I could recognize the Korda photo and be able to develop instant associations. Likewise, those reading the article would be able to associate what they learned from Wikipedia when they see the prevalent image. Aside from that, the Korda photo is a good photo, the other substitutes have been grainy or had shadows. Not to mention that the Korda photo is free for whatever use so there's no fair -use potential problem. I also think there is not a neutrality problem here. The Korda photo doesn't show Che saving puppies or anything like that. It's a plain photo. Also, it's my understanding the photo is not staged (re:172's second comment). Even if it were, most of the articles on political figures in Wikipedia use publicity shots which diffinately are staged. I also don't think the photo in anyway detracts from the article as biography, especially considering the photo was the non-stylized image. Waxing poetic, the photo might even be a good symbolic representation since it's the photo behind the iconic image, just as the article is about the man behind the cult figure.--Bkwillwm 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For those like me, if I were to come to this article not knowing who Che was, I could recognize the Korda photo and be able to develop instant associations. That's bad. An encyclopedia is a souce for factual content, not emotional associations with images. The facts, not the images and emotions, should underlie this article. Your comment makes me oppose the reinsertion of the Korda image even more staunchly. 172 | Talk 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about emotions. I meant visual associations. I think it helps to have visual associations with factual material. I think articles should have easily recognizable photographs illustrating their subjects. I don't know what kind of emotional response you expect readers to have when they see the picture in this article. My guess is that most people say "Hey, it's the t-shirt guy." I think this recognition is a good beginning to informing people of the details behind the man. Also, the image does not make or break the article as a cult vs. biographical piece. Whether the article was pro-cult Che, anti-Che, or neutral, it might have the image (See this page for an example of an anti-Che article with the Korda photo). Why would an anti-Che site use the image? Because it's easily recognizable. The image is also the best image of Che we have available. The alternative you've inserted is low-res, fair-use. You have also failed to provide a fair use rationale for the photo. Please do if you plan to keep it on this page. However, I think your fair use justification will be weak considering there's a free use alternative. My knowledge of fair use is not that deep, but I can't think of a good rationale for using your image, and I do know that the availibility of an alternative, freer image weakens justification for fair use. Also, the Korda photo should be somewhere in the article; for better or worse, the image is iconic and an important part of Che's legacy; leaving it out is negligent.--Bkwillwm 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a different Korda photo version. I think this one is less idealized but still very recognizable, and hopefully alleviates your concerns. If this photo can be agreed on, it should probably be enhanced and maybe cropped. For now, thoughts?--Bkwillwm 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, this version of the photo is tagged fair use instead of copyright with permission. Considering the many uses of the image, I think it's pretty much regarded as free though. The photographer has allowed for a variety of uses, only asserting a copyright claim once in an attempt to stop commericialization of the image. Beats any rationale for using an AP photo I think.--Bkwillwm 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's crazy to not show the photo that people widely associate with Che Guevera. Surely the photo is there to aid in reader identification of the individual? Showing the Korda potrait photo does not cause people to confuse the individual with a cult figure, if anything it does the exact opposite.

Also, the Korda photo is the only real portrait photo (i.e. the usual head-on-sholders framing) held on Wiki. Whether it was "staged" or not is completly irrelevant, most the biographies on Wikipedia display a potrait from a professionally co-ordinated photoshoot. At least the Korda photo shows him involved in politics (what he is primarily famous for after all) rather than simply standing in a room. Canderra 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Category: Atheists

At 03:20 on 05 April 2006, User:67.171.226.128 added Category: Atheists to the Che article. At 03:34 on 5 April 2006, User:DakotaKahn removed it with the comment, "rv-please resource before adding Category:Atheists no source was given". Although it is widely known that Che was an atheist, I have waited to restore User:67.171.226.128's edit until I was able to locate a printed source for it; I have now done so – in a passage on page 25 of Che: Sierra adentro (Che: Deep in the Sierra) by Froilán Escobar and Félix Guerra (Havana: Editora Política, 1988), wherein Oniria Gutiérrez, a combatant in Che's column, describes her first meeting with him, as follows:

"I cannot forget the first night he talked with me … He spoke of my religious ideas and that made me ask him if he was religious. No, he answered, I cannot be religious because I am a Communist."

Polaris999 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an additional source, very much to the point, also from Che: Sierra adentro. In this section, Evelio Laferté, another combatant in Che's column, reminisces:

"As part of organizing the school, Fidel wanted us to come up with certain kinds of oaths for the recruits. The kind of oath we were familiar with was the classic one that existed in the army, which involved God, the word of God, "I swear before God and Country, the Flag" - that sort of thing. We sent two drafts, one of which, by accident, included the word God; accidentally, because we had not intentionally put it there. I recall that this one had to go through Che to get to Fidel.

"Che replied to us in a letter that he had not sent the oath on because, in his view, it was not correct to make someone swear to something in which he did not believe. That he, for example, did not believe in God, and that no one was capable of making him believe in God. That was his reply to us. At the time, it seemed to me that the reply was not very good politics, because the concept I had of politics was to make concessions. But for Che, when it came to questions of fundamental principles, no concessions were possible; it was wrong to try to enlist men through deceit."[3]

(bolding is mine) Polaris999 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Polaris999, I reverted that ip edit because it was unsourced and no edit summary. I had heard Che was and did a quick google but really nothing reliable came up. That was my reasoning. Good job on the article.--Dakota ~ 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dakota, Thank you very much for your kind words about the article. I do agree with you that User:67.171.226.128 and others should provide some explanation, and preferably a recognized source, when adding a category unless the article itself provides sufficient justification for such an action. For example, since the article discusses Che's Irish heritage, it seemed reasonable that someone added him to the category "Irish Argentines". But, as you noticed, the article contains no text from which one could deduce that he was an atheist. Furthermore, this matter is somewhat clouded by the fact that he was both baptized in, and received Last Rites from, the Roman Catholic Church — however, these events were beyond his control since the first occurred just a few days after he was born, and the second shortly after he had been killed and there is every reason to believe that he would have refused consent for them had he been able to do so ... I am wondering if you happened to notice the recent edit warring that went on here over Category:Humanitarians ? I would appreciate hearing your opinion about whether a source should be required for his inclusion therein. Polaris999 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the edit warring. I re-read the entire article again and it's links. Some aspects of him I admire but I do not know if he could be strictly cast as a humanitarian. I believe we would need a reliable sources for that inclusion. I agree that editors should probably read this talk page and at least leave edit summaries when expanding or making changes also as with any article.--Dakota ~ 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughts about this, Dakota. Probably he should be removed from that category until someone provides a source; personally, I do not remember ever having seen one. There is no doubt that he was guided by what he considered to be humanitarian goals, but I believe that there is significant disagreement as to whether they really were primarily humanitarian or primarily political. Also, there can be debate as to whether the method he employed in pursuit of those goals, i.e. armed struggle, fits within the category "humanitarian".

A change was recently made on the article's page that I would like to ask you about. At 05:58, 30 April 2006 Wasabi20 removed an entry in the "External Links" section with the comment "(→External links - - removed link to Spanish website from English article)". The link in question was to an excellent website (based in Cuba) that has one of the best collections of photographs, texts, mp3 files, etc. that I have ever seen. While it is true that it is in Spanish, so are several other websites included in "External Links". So, I would like to ask you, does Wikipedia have some rule against including links in a language other than English in the "External Links" section of an article in the English wikipedia? Polaris999 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hola Polaris999. Spanish was Che's language and the major portion of writings about him are in written in it. The major portion of literature I have read about him are in Spanish. I cannot see that the image link in Spanish should be a problem as the images of him as are mostly on Spanish sites. In fact one of the images [4] on this page I translated and it had been here awhile without being removed.--Dakota ~ 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Saludos, Dakota. And many thanks for your take on the "External Links" section -- and also for translating the information about the photo of the school in La Higuera. I did an rv to restore the link in question, with an explanation in History. Polaris999 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Polaris999, this image archive is probably already linked but just in case[5].--Dakota ~ 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hola Dakota. Thank you for mentioning these links. The article does have a link to the first website; as for the second, I have seen the postmortem photographs displayed on that site many times elsewhere but they still make me ill each time I see them again. This causes me to wonder what the impact would be on others, especially children. I personally do not feel that they contribute significantly to the article. However, if you believe that they should have a link, I implore you to include in the description some reference to their extremely graphic nature so that readers will be forewarned. Polaris999 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, I did not scroll down far enough. Can't bear them either and do not think they should be an include. No I would not include that link. I reverted myself on the second one.--Dakota ~ 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Is it just me, or does this section not make sense? On one hand detractors say he was ineffective, but on the other hand detractors say he was responsible for the deaths of scores. Obviously both aren't right. Does anyone know of a source that addresses this contradiction, and perhaps even reconciles it? Yankoz

Meaning of term "Che"

I performed a revert on a change by User:Mcmachete of the translation of the term "Che" from "pal" or "mate" or "dude" to "hey". My understanding of the term Che is that "pal" or "mate" or "dude" are much better translations than "hey" (although I agree "hey" is a possible additional translation). But "hey" is , is what you just described it as. It is the attention getting word before an endearing term. That endearing term can also be an insult, as friends often dish out insults as a way of demonstrating closeness. i.e. "Larry, you old buzzard, get in here and blow out these candles."

A common Argentine greeting among close friends is "Che, flaco! que hacés?" Of course there would be upside down punctuation to frame the front of the phrases with ! and ?.

It definitely is not used to get the attention of someone you don't know. Think like when you hear "ehye, buddy" rather than "HEY! Come back with my car!"68.55.206.184 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote up here, but I just want to say that here in Argentina (and usually in Uruguay too) the word 'che' is used to get the attention of other person, whether you know his/her name or not. I use it every day and I know that it doesn't mean "dude" or "mate": it can be traduced as "hey", but 'che' can be used to introduce a phrase and not to call a person. --201.235.44.133 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm argentinian and I explain that "che" is an expression used colloquially to call the attention of a person. Just like the example of one user, the phrase "¡Che, flaco! ¿qué hacés?" means literally "Hey, dude! what you do?". In fact, "flaco" means "slim", but in the phrase it works like "dude". In this case, "che" means "hey". "Che" is also used meaning "dude" in another kind of phrases like "No te preocupes, che", meaning "Don't worry, dude". How you can see, the word have not an exact definition, because it varies depending the situation. However, the use of the word is to speak to a relative, not for formal use.

My english is poor, I'm sorry of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.207.60 (talk • contribs).

Thank you, User:201.252.207.60, for this clear explanation and the excellent examples. I hope that you won't mind that I am going to move your comment up to the section where the discussion re the meaning of the term "che" is in progress -- I am doing this because down here it is somewhat of an "orphan" and editors and/or readers who have been following the discussion in that section might not see your contribution if it remains in a separate section down here. Polaris999 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Comment has now been integrated into the section Meaning of term "Che".) -- Polaris999 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:201.252.207.60´s description is indeed pretty accurate.--Rataube 23:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the term "che", which is identical in use and pronunciation as the catalan vocative "xé", has been tracked back to the medieval Spanish word, "ce" (pronounced "tse"), whose purpose was to address someone whose name was not known (in Lombardy, North Italy, there's a "ce" word as well, with similar meaning and pronunciation). This spanish term is assumed to derive from the latin "st" (as documented in Cicero and Terentius, among others). Sources for this explanation are Athos Espíndola ("Diccionario del Lunfardo", Buenos Aires, 2002) and Angel Rosenblat ("Filología" magazine, Buenos Aires, 1962). Sadly, I could not find online links to those resources. Other, less well accepted, ethymologies track this word back to the mapuche language (which is an aborigin population of Argentina), where the word "che" should mean "man" or "son", the very name of this people contains the word: mapu-che (which literally should mean "man", or "son", "of the earth").

Not that this information bears much importance in Che's biography, but if you deem it important or at least interesting, feel free to add it to the article.--EmirCalabuch

That would belong in the article Che, which is about the word, not the person. I'll copy your remarks to that talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Che T shirts

How come wearing t-shirts with Che is legal? It is illegal to wear a t-shirt with image of Hitler or any other top Nazis, yet is is legal to wear one with image of Che. He was a communist and they were worse than the Nazis. This should be disallowed. Communists were cold blooded murders as well. Che was not a hero.

Norum

Another communist hater? So what you are saying is that a communist is a coldblooded murder only because you say so, am i right? this reminds me of the debate about Lars Ohly calling himself a communist in Sweden. Che is not a murderer because he is a communist, as a matter of fact he said;

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.

 It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality".

Che killed people, yes, But for me it would be the same thing as forbidding the use of George Bush on t-shirts because he invaded Iraq and therefore is guilty of thousands of deaths. Of course, i am probably biased since i am a communist myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.208.136.18 (talk • contribs).

This guy was a terrorist, plain and simple. There is nothing to be proud of by declaring yourself a communist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.235.205.201 (talk • contribs).

It isn't illegal to wear shirts depicting Hitler. Welcome to America.

So you call me a communist hater...well, unlike you, I grew up in a communist country so I happen to know what they are capable of. For example, in 1940 communists killed 25,000 polish officers, aristocracy, priests etc within 2 weeks. Now that's a very good reason to hate them.

So it's not illegal in America to wear tshirts with Hitler. Try wearing one of these in Germany and you'll get arrested. Maybe it's legal in America, but try to wear it publically and someone will lynch you. Norum

I persume you are referring to the Polish September Campaign. It was certainly a troubled time for the whole of Europe but Poland definatly suffered particularly bad. Still, I don't think it's fair to blame a socio-economic philsophy for the deaths of all those people. Just like the recent Iraq invasion by the USA (should they be called "the Capatalists"?), which has resulted in the deaths of around 40,000+ Iraqis, the Poland September Campaign was an invasion by one regime, largely due to political relations with many others.

Besides, people don't tend to refer to the Nazi's as the "Capatalists - who executed 8 million people", no they refer to them by their correct name: "the Nazi's", just as the regime which invaded Poland wasn't "The Communists", it was "the Soviet Union", a regime actually opposed by Che Guevara. Not that any of this has anything to do with him. Capatalism isn't defined as being "evil" simply because of what the Nazi's did, so neither should communism be defined as "evil" because of what the Soviet Union did. They are both socio-economic philosophies that both get implemented in however good or evil ways the implementors in charge choose. Canderra 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why on Earth would someone refer to the Nazis as "Capitalists"? They were a form of socialists, with government regulated prices and productions. The fact that company owners were still owners on paper has little to do with it, since they were told exactly what - and how much - to produce, by the government.

Same with America. The US of A isn't a capitalist nation, it's a heavily mixed economy, like all of Europe. It's more capitalist than most (all?) of Europe, sure, but it's not free from heavy government regulations on trade and production.193.11.202.125 10:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the Katyn massacre in 1940. Many people have hard times believing that communists were worse than Nazis. See, communists did what they did long after the war. Do you know what they did with with the free Polish government right after the war? They arrested them right after the war, tried them with false accusations and executed. How can you claim we were not invaded by the communists, but by the Soviets? SU was a communist country therefore Poland was invided by the communist. Don't forget they formed communist goverment in Poland that lasted for 45 years (well, the system, not the gov). What the communists did was not only during the years of the war, it was long into the time of "peace".

Norum

My point was Poland was invaded by another country not a socio-economic policy, the idea of a artificial train of thought taking physical form is a tad obsurd. It's the exact same as stating that the atrocities commited by the Nazis were committed by the "Capitalists" rather than the "Nazis".

Your point is idiotic. Most capitalist countries do not commit large scale attrocities. OTOH almost every communist dictatorship commits attrocities including USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethopia (yes the famines in Ethopia were caused by the communist government), Cuba (through their death camps) etc. The total death toll from communism is estimated to be 100 million

Unfortunatly, imprisonment and execution of previous leaders by a victor is not at all uncommon after a war. It is still happening today (e.g. Bosnian war, Iraq War and many others) and will likely always occur. I am not trying to justify what they (The Soviet Union) did at all, but it is important to recognise who "they" were and not to over-generalise.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Che Guevara, who wasn't even much of a fan of the Soviet Union anyway. I'm not trying to glorify anything here, but this is all entirely unrelated to communism, let alone Che Guevera. Canderra 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems rather POV. Isn't the point of the discussion page more to debate the facts regarding Guevara than engage in these kind of hypotheticals about what should and shouldn't be legal? Maybe this sort of thing would be better served on a political webpage or discussion room. Canderra has a point. Wyldkat

Indeed, besides the silliness of this discussion being here... Che wasn't a communist... if anything he was a maoist... not that you should start argueing about mao here... Misterniceguy7 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, those shirts are so pimpin'! Man! lol,--DoomsElf 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This one is my favourite. I own one: Che Shirt --M4-10 07:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What the Soviet Union did to their own people and others was "in the name of" communism and an interpretation of Marx-Lenin, rather than being true to wider socialist philosophy. Don't confuse those who use a doctrine for their own power with those who use it for the freedoms and rights of others. George Bush "says" he is a Christian - would you say everybody that was a Christian behaved or thought like him? There is nothing wrong with being a socialist or communist, like there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. There is something very wrong with abusing people for your own ends as the Soviet Union did and still does.

In America it is seen as very wrong to be "socialist"; in Europe it is often an ideal and a sign of care for the disadvantaged. Events like Katrina last year showed that the US is far from any notion of social care and fair distribution of means. 62.3.70.68 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Russia and Maoist China were not "interpretations" of socialism, they were its ultimate expression. Means aren't distributed, they are earned, and the deaths of the elderly in France's recent heat wave show European notions of social care. --M4-10 09:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The US is the perfect case study for JK Galbraith's expression "private affluence and public squalor". Shame on you. 86.137.14.147 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Is the US the ultimate expression of captialism? As for the "recent heat wave": Overall live expectancy in France is about two years higher than in the US (according to the CIA World Factbook). Live expectancy in "socialist" Sweden is higher still. But none of these countries is "socialist", they have a social market economy. --Stephan Schulz 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweden has the best standard of living (for all) in the world. There is definately something more civilised having a strong social policy at the heart of your culture. Social justice is the mark of a mature, humane society. 62.3.70.68 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess what you don't understand is that truly advanced societies allow all to reach their highest potential- in the US, you don't have mommy(aka government) guaranteeing you everything, but you have freedom. For some, myself included, although it comes with personal responsibility, being free is far better than being a child for your entire life. Oh well...some people just aren't mature enough to handle that kind of responsiility. 71.241.68.99 17:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have your society guaranteeing anything. You get ill - pay up. Oh you can't afford insurance? You die then. Nice that your potential and opportunities in life are based on your own personal wealth. If that's your opinion of bring advanced and grown-up then you can keep it. You seem to be brainwashed into the thought that social justice is incompatable with freedom. How many below minimum wage Walmart workers are truely free? They must feel really responsible having to have 2 jobs just to make bread line - but hey they're Mexican so what do you care? Enjoy driving your 4x4 to the mall on 50c a gallon petrol and feeling superior because your in the moneyed section of the US economy. I really wish you a mishap that requires help from others and its not there. 62.3.70.68 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moonwalkerwiz 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) These talks bore me. Each side has enough reason to justify their position. The reason why the Communism vs Capitalism debate never ends is that its very purpose is to prolong the talks and never get to doing something concrete. The Utopia of Communism can never be achieved by such stupid argumentation, it's merely pre-empting it (like the US and Soviet War is pre-empted by videogames and Hollywood movies). People who debate about these things would like to think they're actually getting nearer the reality of whatever they say, but this is merely simulation, empty gratification of dry desires. We don't have wars anymore, because we have people like you talking. And whatever wars we have, it's as real to us as a Looney Toons cartoon.

... And this is the point when you open up a private chatroom and continue the conversation outside Wikipedia talk space. Really. Please. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted agreement: this is enough argumentum ad hominem, please. It is quite possible to have a disagreement with someone without wishing them ill, calling them immature or questioning their upbringing. Thanks. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know you can get Che tea towels? Sadena 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Communist=Evil? Answer: No. He may have killed people, but all revolutionaries (well most) have to kill people. "Communists were worse then the Nazis". Wrong again. Nazis murdered people who were differant. Communists dont run on rascism. Communism isn't bad, in fact what people consider communism isn't even really. A communist dictatorship is actually an oxy-moron. Complete opposites. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. He may be a terrorist to you, but the fact is, some consider him a hero. You think the patriots in the american revolution never killed anyone out of cold blood? Doubt it, im sure they killed people in cold blood, but we think of them as heroes. Good and Bad is a mteer of point of view.

And that concludes my 8-year old son's essay on communism. He got a C+. --M4-10 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Che" or "Ché"?

NB: Because confusion has once again arisen about whether or not there should be an accent on the "e" of Che, I am reprising this section where the matter was thoroughly discussed. [Original text can be seen in Archive 2.] Polaris999 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm amazed to find not one word about whether the spelling is "Che" or "Ché". I've seen the latter in a number of publications, most recently in Famous Last Words (C. B. Ruffin). Yet there is no clarification which it truly is, nor is was there even a redirect from Ché Guevara for those who might think to spell it this way. In my own ignorance, I can't tell if this is a case of English authors ignoring inconvenient accents or the equally peculiar habit of adding accents where they may not be needed. Can someone authoritatively state (preferably with cited references) which is correct? Not only is it a question of how to spell the appropriate Spanish (or Argentinian slang) for "buddy", but it's perhaps more important how Guevara himself (or his buddies) spelled it, as people's names don't necessarily follow their origins. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the spelling might belong in the article Che, but probably not here. I'll add the redirect, though (not that very many English-speakers throw accents into searches). -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Adding accents to monosyllabic Spanish words is pretty unusual. It is usually done only to distinguish two otherwise identically spelled words: for example, "¿Qué dices?" vs. "Lo que me importa…" or "…lo más importante" vs. the (now largely archaic) "mas" as a synonym for "pero". I wouldn't be surprised to see an accent on "¡Ché!" used to get someone's attention, but wouldn't expect to see it on "Che" used as a name. But I'm not a native speaker, and while I'm pretty knowledgable on Argentine Spanish, I'm no expert. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The accent he is refering to is called "diacritic" (acento diacrítico); I've never read an accentuated "che". It is a mistake to accentuate that word since there are no other homophones; even in Che Guevara it wouldn't, since the Che is derived from the original. Plober 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmabel. I feel more comfortable leaving it "Che" instead of starting a possibly misguided crusade to add the accent. I can see that this may be a case of little documentation about something that native speakers take for granted, and non-Spanish-speakers are in ignorance about. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Che, definitely without accent. --Marianocecowski 07:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got a book by el Che (pasajes de la guerra revolucionaria), printed in Cuba, and that uses the spelling without an accent. DirkvdM 13:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And correctly so. Here is a bit of background: Historically, monosyllabic Spanish nouns ending in "e" had been accented. Therefore, if you look at one of the peso bills that Che signed while he was President of the National Bank of Cuba, you will see that he accented the "e" in "Che". Circa 1962, the REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA in Madrid, which sets orthographical and grammatical standards for the Spanish language, issued a ruling to the effect that it made no sense to have an accent on monosyllabic words, except to differentiate between homonyms (such as "te" and "té"), and that therefore, from that time forward, the accent should not be used on the "e" of non-homonymous words. Che immediately adopted the new spelling and his signatures after that date do not have an accent on the "e". Moreover, while he was being held captive in the school room in La Higuera, Bolivia [8-9 October 1967], he noticed that on the blackboard the teacher had written the word "fé" [faith] with the archaic accent on the "e"; when she [Julia Cortés] came into the school room later and they had a conversation, he explained to her about the ruling by the RAE and suggested that she erase the accent from the word so that it would be correctly written (i.e., "fe"), which she did. Polaris999 04:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am inserting here a scan of his signature to remove all doubts about this matter ... Polaris999 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job Polaris999. I hope it settles the matter also. Good reference to go by.--Dakota ~ 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, well done to all who contributed, I have always wondered about the validity of the accent myself. Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to have stopped one or more anonymous users constantly re-inserting the accent but oh well, this article witnesses a lot worse vandalism. Canderra 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

I reverted the removal of external links. Did not see any discussion recently on this page concerning removal of links so did the revert. Such changes such be discussed first.--Dakota ~ 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dakota

I re-reverted your revert but only saw afterwards your explanation here after I have done so. Sorry!

Please look at the history of the guy who originally added his link (200.55.155.193) is constantly link spamming wikipedia with links to his website (nothing else in contribution, just adds his link). I followed him here from another page he keeps adding his links to. Cabanos 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually four links were removed in 3 revisions. Not exactly sure what particular link you refer to.--Dakota ~ 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Uncertainty about Che's Birthdate

According to Che's mother, he was actually born on May 14th. She was three months pregnant when she married Che's father, so they pushed his date of birth a month ahead. - Che, Jon Lee Anderson, Chapter 1.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.169.68 (talk • contribs).

There is no documented record of Che's mother ever having told anyone this. Anderson repeats a story that was told to him by a woman he identifies as "Julia Constenla de Giussani" (page 9) who he says told him that she had arranged for an astrologer to draw up a chart for Ernesto, and this said Julia is reported to have stated that the astrologer in question told her that Che's mother had told her that he was actually born on 14 May 1928 rather than on 14 June 1928, the latter date being the one that is recorded on his birth certificate and all of his other official documents. Since no one before or after Anderson has ever presented evidence of the alleged falsification, and since Che and all of his family always celebrated his birthday on 14 June, and since the reason for the alleged falsification, i.e. to "avoid scandal", doesn't make sense because Celia and Ernesto (his parents) were quite well known for their total lack of concern as to what others might think of them and their lifestyle, it does not make sense to conclude, on the basis of this one hearsay report and in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary, that Ernesto was born on 14 May.

Nevertheless, the story related by Anderson is summarized in the article's Content Note entitled "Birthdate" as follows:

Birthdate: While 14 June 1928 is Guevara's official date of birth, it may not be the actual date of birth. The official story is that he was born eight months after his parents married; several sources suggest that he was born earlier (the date 14 May is the most prevalent), and that his mother was already pregnant at the time of her marriage.

This Content Note is linked to in the first sentence of the first paragraph, right after the date "14 June 1928".

It was the consensus of all of the editors working on the article just prior to its being nominated for FA status that this was the correct way to handle the matter of the birthdate, and this is the version that was promoted to FA. If you want to read further detail about this subject and how the decision was reached, please consult the Archives (listed at the top of this page). Also, in the future, kindly sign your comments. Polaris999 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

I readded some of the links from the Cuban Ministry of Culture website containing historic videos and images of Che Guevara. They are not spam links and are easily navigated. Please discuss any changes before removal of material. --Dakota ~ 20:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I know of the policy of adding external links, non-English links are to be avoided on the English Wikipedia. Exceptions are made when they have information that is not available on any other English language external link or the article itself, which is not the case in this article. However, after digging deeper it would seem that this link in particular can be considered an "official" link seeing how it is hosted at the Cuban Ministry of Culture (I misunderstood what was meant by "cult" in the cult.cu domain) and therefore it should stay.

However, we have now had another Spanish link added (http://www.echeguevara.com.ar). Should this one stay? Earlier there was a Russian and Dutch link that was removed. Should those also be brought back? Cabanos 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that consensus has been reached re inclusion of the Che, Guía y Ejemplo site. I do think that Cabanos has directed our attention to a matter that needs consideration: i.e., the desirability of clearly labelling external links to foreign language sites so that readers who do not know the language in question will not click on them assuming that they are in English. To make this differentiation as clear as possible, I have set up a separate sub-section for links to Spanish-language sites within the External Links section, and the same can be done for other languages, as appropriate.

Concerning the site Revista Social "Proyecto Che Guevara" mentioned by Cabanos above, I have removed it because (1) although it purports to be a non-profit site, it is filled with advertisements and (2) my review of it so far has failed to turn up any information not already presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. On the positive side, it would be interesting to have a link to an Argentina-based site, but I am just not certain that this one meets Wikipedia's standards. If you have an opinion on this matter, please present your reasons for supporting or opposing its inclusion here on the Talk page.

I have also removed the newly-added site, Che Guevara Information Archive because (1) it devotes much of its space to commercial advertising, (2) it seems to be seriously out of date and (3) my review of it so far has failed to uncover any information not presented either in the Wikipedia CG article or in the links already included in the External Links section. Again, if others disagree, please present your reasons for supporting its inclusion here on the Talk page.

Concerning the Russian and Dutch language sites referenced by Cabanos, the reasons that they were excluded were, in the first case, that the Russian site continuously caused problems during loading and, in the second case, because none of the editors working on the CG article at the time the link to the Dutch language site was added had sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language to be able to evaluate that site. Here, too, these decisions are open to discussion and could be reversed if the problems mentioned are overcome. Polaris999 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/

Remark on labeling foreign-language links

Just wanted to make sure that people know about templates like {{en icon}}, {{es icon}}, etc., which show up as (English), (Spanish), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, didn't know about these templates -- many thanks, Jmabel, for mentioning them. -- Polaris999 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Che the Murderer

I have many Cuban friends ....many with families that were either tortured or killed my this thug. I refer you to an article in National Review on December 31, 2004 pp 28-30 "Che Chic" by Jay Nordlinger —The preceding comment is by 24.115.57.233 (talk • contribs) User talk:24.115.57.233: Please sign your posts!

It's kind of funny, as I am not from the USA I had not heard of the "National Review" before. Logging onto their website though, the first thing I am greeted with is a quote stating in large letters "There is no solid evidence that we’ve locked the ice caps in to a melting trend." and then the next line of text is a statement from the editors: "The Senate isn’t serious about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws". I think these statements give a clear indication of the political views of that publication. I have not yet read the article you mention but I think it should be treated with about as much scepticism as if it cam from a magazine called the "Communist Review". Canderra 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

National Review like New Republic or The Nation is a political journal so it does have an opinion. But it has over 50 years of journalist history that is impeccable....it has fewer incidents of plagarism or straight up made up stories than the NY Times. Also read the essays of Humberto Fontova —The preceding comment is by 24.115.57.233 (talk • contribs) User talk:24.115.57.233: Please sign your posts!

National Review is very notable, just like the above mentioned sources. Also if we are going to use KGB agent/journalist Richard Gott as a source than anything goes. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The National Review is a far-right propagandistic and Bush Administration apologist vehicle. As for anyone "tortured or killed [b]y this thug," that's original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. As far as the National Review having "over 50 years of journalist history that is impeccable," that's POV bunk -- it trumpeted the non-existent WMDs in Iraq and still insists they exist. 4.232.228.62 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The National Review is conservative, but there are those generally on the Left who are uncomfortable with Che. Film critic Roger Ebert is certainly not right-wing, but in his review of The Motorcycle Diaries he says, "Che Guevara makes a convenient folk hero for those who have not looked very closely into his actual philosophy, which was repressive and authoritarian."[6] There are other criticisms among liberals, and some Leftists, when it comes to Che some of them are dealt with in the article.--T. Anthony 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Guevara was a communist, plain and simple. I think that ideology's despicable track record speaks for itself, regardless of whether the National Review is a piece of "far-right propaganda" or not. --Impaciente 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether he murdered or not, to call him a thug is insulting. He is a revolutionary. How does does a revolutionary take and consilidate power? Violence. He is far from a murderous thug.

Well, he wasn't a murderous thug, I'll admit that. What he was instead was a soulless, bloodthirsty, homicidal mercenary. Yes, I think that's more accurate. 69.118.97.26 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I say Ronald Regan was a genocidal murderer. They both killed people didn't they? The difference is Ronald Reagan got people to do it for him while Che did it himself. While were at it, lets round up all the revolutionary war heroes who killed and call them murderous thugs cause it doesn't suit your idealogy.-69.123.9.255 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'd consider the National Review generally citable on matters of fact (like The Nation at the other end of the spectrum they're pretty scrupulous), suspect on matters of interpretation (they've been known to make some leaps in their time; it would depend on who the particular writer was), and highly citable as an instance of U.S. right-wing opinion (they are the leading journal of their type on the right in the U.S.). In a matter like this: I'd be reasonably certain that if they say particular killings occurred they did (at least in this case: they have been known to be duped, as over some supposed atrocities that have justified various wars); I'd believe them on the existence and accurate quotation of any documents or other sources they brought forward; I would not give them much credibility on the interpretation of those sources; and I'd consider them citable as an illustration of right-wing U.S. opinion of Che Guevara, if there is a need for that in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)