Talk:Che Guevara

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Che Guevara article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Former featured article Che Guevara is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2006.
Selected content star Che Guevara is part of the selected content on the Communism Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality Communism-related article.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Che Guevara.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.
To-do list for Che Guevara: edit · history · watch · refresh

(When an item is complete, just delete it)

  • Format
  • Check whether there are any words or phrases that a reader might not understand, that need wikilinks.
  • Read the Manual of Style and check the article for formatting details
  • Check whether all non-reference names in the article that can be wikilinked are wikilinked.
  • Content
  • Incorporate and evenly blend the 3 major Guevara biographies: (1) Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson (2) Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda (3) Guevara, Also Known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II.
  • Use as ref for the Cuba section Piero Gleijeses' Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa 1959-1976 - per Buddingjournalists suggestion (Coppertwig is working on this.)
  • Utilize - "The Fall of Che Guevara: A Story of Soldiers, Spies, and Diplomats" by Henry Butterfield Ryan, for the Bolivia section. (RedThoreau is working on this)
  • References
  • Find ISBN numbers for all books.
  • Check whether some unreliable references are being used, and remove them
  • Check whether some references could be replaced with more reliable ones, such as replacing a news article with a reliable book
  • Fix broken links (See Talk:Che Guevara#Broken links).
  • Check different sources for account of last words, e.g. Mallin, Jay (1968) as cited in comment by Ling.Nut
  • Include possible Daniel James reference to Che admitting to "several thousand" (or was it 1500?) executions
  • Formatting of references (Coppertwig is working on this)

Contents

[edit] Stalinism?

is it verifiable that Che once signed one of his letters as "Stalin II"? - Also, isn't there ample examples of Che eigther following of speaking highly of Stalinist policy, and if this is the case: Why is it not included in the article? 87.60.229.164 (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As of now the article does not mention Stalinism or Che's support of it. The Spanish edition of this article does. Should it be added? 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a worshipful view of Che. So no, it should not be added. User:Redthoreau and User:Coppertwig are in charge of the article and nothing that they do not O.K. is allowed in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
As with all articles, content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS involving all editors, not just me and Redthoreau, and by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Whole books have been written about Guevara, and this article is just a short summary, a few pages in length. There isn't room for everything. We need to choose the most interesting, relevant, notable etc. material.
If you think something (about Stalinism or anything else) should be added to this article, I suggest you write something here on the talk page, with suggested text to add, giving one or more citations, and perhaps an argument as to why it's important enough to include. Then everyone can discuss whether to include it or not.
For some material, if there isn't enough room in this article, there may be a place for it in one of the other articles about Guevara. For example, the foco theory article is about Guevara's ideology, sort-of, so possibly that information might go better there, where there's more room to go into detail about ideology, although perhaps the article is only about one aspect of Guevara's ideology so possibly not.
Anderson (1997) mentions Stalin only briefly, e.g. p. 565, and indicates that Guevara was initially enthusiastic about the ideas, then later disillusioned with them.
I don't see why mentioning support of Stalinism would necessarily be considered worshipful. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To address the first comments in this section from the IP accounts starting with 87 & 90. Yes, there are a few verifiable instances of Che Guevara having some tangential response with relation to Stalin (the man) although not necessarily the theories of “Stalinism”. As for background, various biographers have pointed out how Guevara who grew up during WWII and his family were ardent critics of Nazism and thus staunch supporters of the allies in WWII - especially Stalin’s Russia, but this would have also included the U.S., Britain etc. Thus there was an instance in 1953 (8 years after the end of WWII) when a young Ernesto Guevara (he was not “Che” yet) after spending 3 weeks passing through the domains of the United Fruit Company in Costa Rica wrote a letter to his Aunt Beatriz back in Buenos Aries. In this private letter to his aunt, Guevara states that he swore on the lamented image of Comrade Stalin that he would not rest until these capitalist “octopuses have been vanquished.” (Taibo II mentions this on pg 31). I also remember that in another text that it stated Guevara wrote this letter after encountering a large group of young children with “swollen stomachs” who were being used in his mind as de-facto child slaves for the United Fruit Co and that he was venting his rage towards the injustices he viewed of capitalism in his letter. Now if editors find this event notable, I would not object to including it in its full context. Moreover, Guevara I believe also addressed a letter to possibly the same aunt around the same time with the moniker of 'Stalin II' (although Taibo, hypothesizes that the mentions of Stalin might have been an attempt to ruffle his more conservative relatives feathers, thus his sincerity is uncertain). However, in regard to undue weight, Che biographers have also pointed out how Guevara (who supported Stalin in the early 1950’s) became more disillusioned with the Soviet Union in the early 1960’s as he began to side with Mao and the Chinese in the Sino/Soviet Split. Of note as well, when Guevara was killed, he had books by Leon Trotsky (Stalin’s nemesis) in his bag. In conclusion, it would be difficult to speculate on what degree Guevara identified with the particular Marxist interpretation referred to as “Stalinism”, although it would be accurate to state that in the early 1950’s, Guevara lamented Stalin and viewed him favorably.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe we should look at including some mentions of Stalinism, *including* desribtions of Che's initial attraction to it, and later shift to Maoism. To me, this information would be crucial to an article on Che. Also, if the context of Che signing a letter as 'Stalin II' is even remotely uncertain, then I think the eventual article entry should reflect that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.229.164 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
IP 87, you are more than encouraged to draw up an example of a cited statement that you believe would be worthy of inclusion and display it here for possible consideration (the article is locked from IP edits due to past vandalism, but I would gladly include it for you if there is some consensus on its verifiability and relevance). In addition, if you would rather have me write up something, and are willing to give me a little bit of time (week or so) then I would also be willing to write up a proposal that hopefully would alleviate your concern for there being a lack of inclusion of this material ... just let me know. The last thing I want is for others to view this article as a “white-wash” (or paradoxically a “hatchet-job”) and I am more than willing to include or back the inclusion of what could be viewed as “negative” aspects, as long as they are verified amongst the credible & scholarly Che biographers (Anderson, Castaneda, Taibo II) or others without an ideological ‘axe to grind’. These biographers do acknowledge this tangential connection to Stalin in his youth, and thus a brief acknowledgement in its proper context, I feel could be justified.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes exactly. The article would also be worse off if it presented information in an overly anti-Che manner. My dream article would present the information, pro et contra, and then let the reader decide. (This really was a good motto before Fox news made a mockery of it.) - Anyhow, I think the mention of Stalinism is especially due in this article because Stalinism is one of the main points of the anti-Che info that is floating around the net and also in academic essays. In a somewhat imprecise metaphor one could say that there is smoke, but seemingly only a little fire (I.e. tangiental relations to Stalin). So by all accounts the article would actually be better off representing the fire, not to let it get out of hand if you will excuse the mixed metaphor. 90.184.19.129 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
90.184.19.129, you have not made it clear whether you intend to write some suggested text as Redthoreau (RT) suggested, nor whether you wish RT to do so as RT had offered if requested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
As R.T. is obviously better informed I think he should do it. - Though it needent be more than a few lines.90.184.19.129 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Per your response 90, I will work on something in the next week and display it first on the talk page here, that hopefully will address your concern.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) - Hung up? 93.162.102.10 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over-Quote Tag

User:Damiens.rf is attempting to template the article as containing "too many quotes" (see --> WP:QUOTE) , without any previous discussion of the matter. From current experience with him in our "de-facto quote edit-war", I already know that he/she believes articles should contain NO quotes whatsoever (as he has made it his crusade to currently delete all quotes in Che Guevara related articles). Thus, I figured I would provide this space here for other editors who have been working on the current Che Guevara article to discuss the issue of "over quoting" --- as it relates specifically to this article.

Also Damiens, you are encouraged to (1) offer your rationale here for why you feel the article contains too many quotes, (2) offer up a revised version of the article for how you think it should read (with respect to maintaining the information contained within the quotes themselves if possible, per wiki policy), (3) or offer up specific and cited wiki policy which you believes justifies the removal of ALL quotes within articles. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate to keep the topic on the content, and not on me (or any other editor, as a matter of fact). In this spirit, I ask for help on taking each of the 5 quotations on this article, examine them for presence of factual information or notable sayings, and incorporate the actual info in the article.
To raise awareness about this ongoing effort, the article should remain tagged. --Damiens.rf 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Damiens, missing from your above reply is any rationale on why you feel the article contains "too many quotes", and why you feel justified in believing that it is wiki policy to ensure that no quotes remain? Is it your view that (1) The article contains too many quotes? Or that it should contain no quotes whatsoever? Is it your view that (2) These particular quotes are not notable enough for inclusion? Or that no notable quotes are worthy of being used in a quote format? Before other editors can "help" you, alleviate your concerns, you need to be more specific on your exact quandary with the article as it currently stands.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
But still, some other che-related article are in an even worse shape, like Che_(film)#Director_Soderbergh or Che_Guevara_(photo) (where some good work has been started by User:Rogerb67). --Damiens.rf 20:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to keep discussion on this article itself as I previously requested.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
We should use quotes when we have something to say about the quoted text, or when what was said is important (and not just "related") to the topic. I fail to see how some (if not all) quotes in this article (and in the other mentioned) are fulfilling any role other than decoration. It's not about too many or too few quotes. As long as each quote is justified, you can have how many of them you desire. But in the case of these articles, so far, they seem to be just beautiful and inspiring phrases said by great people. Wikiquote is where they belong. --Damiens.rf 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The difference between "important" and "related" is in the eye of the beholder, and requires a full understanding of the topic at hand (which I believe I have). Moreover, quotes are not like images where you have a corroborating page to justify your fair use (which you seem to be implying we should do). As for "beautiful" or "inspiring" phrases, that is a matter of your opinion, and I would disagree, and state that they are directly relevant to the preceding text in each instance, and made by notable people related to the subject at hand (particularly quotes by Che himself, or his father, which are of course highly relevant and comprise 3 of the 5 disputed uses).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Wikipedia should not be seen as an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. --Damiens.rf 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) --- Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use

“ "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." ”

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf, you said, (quote) "We should use quotes when we have something to say about the quoted text, or when what was said is important (and not just "related") to the topic." I don't think those are the only reasons to use quotes. Quotes can be like images: to show what Guevara sounded like, not only what he looked like. Quotes can be the best way to convey some information in some cases, instead of a Wikipedian sentence. Quotes are used frequently in some articles I edit, such as Circumcision.
I see these quotes of Guevara:
  • a longish quote at the beginning of the Guatemala section
    This is important: it illustrates the development of his way of thinking, which led to the course of his whole career.
  • "the most painful days of the war"
    Illustrates what conditions were like more concisely than a Wikipedian sentence could.
  • "My survival instincts took over"
    This quote serves to emphasize the extremity of the situation he went through and to describe what it was like from his point of view.
  • a longish quote at the beginning of the "leaves Cuba" section
    We report that he spoke at the United Nations. What he said there is of more interest to the reader, I think, than merely reporting the fact that he spoke there. This quote illustrates his ideology.
  • "This is the history of a failure"
    This quote serves a dual purpose of commenting on the Congo mission, and illustrating Guevara's attitude towards it.
  • stating that it was "anti-pedagogical" to expect campesino students to be educated there, while "government officials drive Mercedes cars" ... declaring "that's what we are fighting against."
    The above quote seems to me to illustrate Guevara's ideology nicely.
  • "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution."
  • "I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man."
    These quotes of what he is alleged to have said just before he was killed are notable and are important commentary on his (alleged) character and attitude towards death and towards the relationship between himself and the rest of humankind, which could not be illustrated in any other way.
There are also numerous quotes of other people. I think probably Che Guevara should be quoted more often in this article than anyone else. I would be disappointed in the article if it had no quotes of him. An important aspect of Guevara is his ideology, his way of thinking. This is more important than how he looked (as opposed to an article about an actor, for example, where images might be more important). The article needs to illustrate something about his way of thinking, and quotes can do that.
If you have problems with any specific quotes, please discuss those particular quotes. At the moment my position is that I oppose deleting any of the above quotes, but I'm open to arguments. I oppose having an over-quote tag on the article unless arguments are raised against specific quotes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree Copper, and Damiens desire for a tag is irrelevant for now anyway, as he was just blocked again for the 2nd time in 2 days for a week.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Where is a criticism section of stalinist murderer and butcher?

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is one paragraph in the "Legacy" section. bogdan (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Good Wikipedia articles don't usually have separate "criticicm" sections, but mix any criticism among comments in other sections where they are relevant, so that the entire article is NPOV, rather than having one section from one point of view (POV) and another section from another POV. If you think there's a POV that's not adequately represented in the article, I suggest that you state on this talk page some precise words that you suggest adding to the article, and cite a reliable source. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This issue is also discussed in detail above.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

it was censored because its not PC to talk about the evils of Che —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.203.26 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why Category:Anti-globalization ?

Why is Che Guevara in the category Anti-globalization?

AFAIK, marxists supported international integration, more explicitely their version of globalization, Proletarian internationalism. bogdan (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is most likely in that category because his ideas, and his denunciations of "neocolonialism" have been utilized by those who oppose the current neo-liberal policies identified as "globalization." Fidel Castro for instance has repeatedly cited Che's own statements to not only critique globalization, but to show how in his mind - Che was "prophetic" in his criticisms and warnings of such a system.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that you can interpret Jesus' words to say that his statements were a critique of globalization. That's just POV: The category doesn't belong there. bogdan (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If Jesus' words were heavily utilized amongst many in the anti-globalization movement, then your red herring/analogy might be relevant. Che's critiques of what we now call "globalization” existed before the term was clearly defined ... however this does not negate the fact that his ideas do bear relevance in the anti-globalization community and are accurately identified as not only a ideological pre-cursor, but an “early warning” by those who prescribe to an anti-globalization ethos. There is nothing POV, about such a reality.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think if you go to an anti-globalization rally you might find people carrying placards with Che's image on them. A web search for "Che anti-globalization" has about 40,000 hits. If my arithmetic is right, that's about 5% of all the hits for "anti-globalization". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Birth

The official record of Che's birth specifies June 14, 1928, as the day. However, subsequent research by Jon Lee Anderson, reported in his biography, Che Guevara (1997), reveals the correct date. May 14, 1928. The explanation for the discrepancy is that Ernesto Guevara Lynch and Celia de la Serna were married when Celia was two months pregnant. The couple left the whisperings of Buenos Aires for a remote area in the north where they arranged for an appropriate birth date. Feel free to read into Andersons work yourself, because i do believe this is the correct date.

This issue has been extensively discussed previously ad nauseum, with the eventual unanimous consensus being to keep July 14 as the birth date. Anderson’s May 14 is based off of a third person account, while July 14 is the recognized birth date by Che’s remaining family, the Che Guevara Studies Center, and in reference to official celebrations in Cuba, Argentina etc. Of note I originally took the same stance as that above, until I was shown the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real Media? Really?

Whoever thought that rm would be a good format to use for those clips at the bottom of the page obviously has some kind of brain problem. You know, as in not having one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamagurka (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Which clips are you specifically referring to? As for the external link clips, they play in the video format that they are delivered in.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "guided by love"

Where is Che's most famous statement about a revolutionary being guided by a great feeling of love??? This should be included in the article I belief. 137.52.178.189 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please go on and add it. The article is currently suffering from a massive lack of quotations. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo