Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Personality cult

That quote is [i]not[/i] from the book, it is a basic summary.

---

In modern day Cuba, where president Castro has outlawed the use of his own image for public display, the Gutierrez portrait is the center of the nation's revolutionary personality cult.

This was removed. Why? Is it wrong? Isn't it neutral? -- Error 05:25 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- Fidel Castro's image is displayed ubiquitously in Cuba, and most of the images of him are put up by the propaganda branches of the government or the PCC [Cuban Communist Party]. During the early years of the Revolution, Fidel supposedly discouraged portraits of himself in governmental offices but this prohibition has long since been forgotten and now his portraits are in fact de rigeur in all such locations and virtually everywhere else.

Concerning the matter of the personality cult, it seemed to me that some clarification is needed to explain the existence of two distinct personality cults in Cuba, that devoted to Fidel and the one to Che's memory, or more correctly, Fidel's interpretation of Che's life and work. I don't know how much detail about this aspect needs to be included on this page?

Something like:

Che's memory, in the interpretation of the Cuban Communist Party, is the subject of a personality cult in Cuba. This is apparent in events like ... and places like...

The cult of Castro is not very relevant here.

-- Error

-- I think that approach would be a good one ... It is a troubling subject, since any kind of personality cult was anathema to Che. [Will you be adding this to that section?]

No, I don't know about the inner situation of Cuba so I couldn't fill the "..." -- Error

-- Ah, well ... I will think about trying to do it then, but am afraid I will have a perhaps insurmountable NPOV problem.

Dr.

The very 1st word says "Dr.", what was Guevara one of? --Menchi 05:00 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Following his graduation from the University of Buenos Aires medical school in 1953,... - Hephaestos

I believe he was a doctor of medicine, specializing in leprosy. There is a film about his early life called "The Motorcycle Diaries," it also illustrates his early life a little bit. (anon 30 April 2005)

Yes, he was a medical doctor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any records proving he graduated as a doctor?

Guevara entered medical school at the University of Buenos Aires in 1947 and passed exams and became a medical doctor in March 1953. He returned to Argentina at that time. 71.28.252.57 19:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was his travels as a doctor helping the injured in battle that led to him becoming a revolutionary. I'm not sure if there are any records proving it, just like there are not any records proving that old english kings were kings. They've been lost through time, but we still accept them as history because no one has proof otherwise.

If you watch the movie again, you will realise that he wasnt qualified whilst on his travels.

Evita?

This article needs to be careful about the meaning of "Che." In contrast to what it says at the beginning, "che" is a generic term for someone from Argentina, like "kiwi" for a New Zealander. Also the comment at the end about "Evita" is way off. The narrator character in Evita, who assumes many different roles at different parts of the play, is named Che. However the narrator is named "che" precisely because it is a generic name, and the character is an everyman...

I agree that the character in Evita has nothing to do with Ernesto Guevara, however the consensus seems to be that he is based on the "Che" persona, using a famous man to narrate and guide the audience through the story, much like Virgil in Dante's Inferno. My father is Argentine and I've spoken Castillian my whole life. "Che" means "Hey you!". Theanthrope 17:17, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this. "Che" is a common address among friends in Argentina, however, in other south american countries people from argentina are known as "che" because they say it all the time, not unlike medieval French calling the English "les goddams" after the common exclamation uttered by the English. Theanthrope 01:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Can I conlude then that the passage should be removed? It stands out as a curiosity and then turns out to be - wrong.(sorry, forgot to put name Bastel )

I don't think so: the upshot seems to be that the character is supposed to be a highly fictionalized Che Guevara. The play is famous enough that I'd say that deserves mention. "Che" is indeed a common nickname for an Argentine, but this is probably intended as at least a reference to Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I did some more research on the topic. In the original stage musical, "Che" is dressed up to be Che Guevara indeed. The "Guevara" doesn't appear in the script, though. The official line of Rice (the writer) seems to be Thanthrope's Vergil interpretation - loosely based on. In the Evita movie, the Che character played by Banderas is not Guevara, though. Director Alan Parker explained that "what works on stage, doesn't work on the screen", so "Che" is indeed the Argentine everyman. I guess that means the passage can be left as is, though "based on" instead of "depicted as" would be more accurate. bastel

---

Guevara's only interaction with Eva Peron was to write her a facetious letter in his youth, asking for a Camaro.

where this came from ? The camaro was released on the 60s while guevara was already a revolutionary and evita wasn t anything at all.--Zero00 14:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It came from his biography. I added that bit originally. He actually asked her for a Jeep, but somebody must have changed it to a Camaro. I have no idea why. I'll change it back Theanthrope 23:26, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

neutrality of article

Can someone add captions to the pictures? On my browser, my screen size conspires with the font size and word wrapping to, unfortunately, write below the big photo, "Cuban Dictator Fulgencio Batista."

---

Whoever this anonymous person who write about the La Cabana Fortress is, I want to ask you to link not to a commercial site for us to buy a book but a neutral website describing Guevara's tenure at the Fortress. It is commonly known that Cuba executed counter-revolutionary prisoners directly after the revolution, but what is not common knowledge is that Guevara was at the head of the firing squads. Your estimates of 15,000-17,000 seem exagerated, and the demeanor in which you write, both anonymously and extremely subjectively, leads me to read your edits as vandilism. Please explain yourself, and provide a non-commercial link to an article about the La Cabana Fortress. Thank you. Punkche 22:30 1-1-2004.

---

Link to a book ehhhh..........

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554198/104-7881084-3009501?v=glance This is the same link that is on the page. Its a book by Cuban poet Armando Valladares, and it details what he saw and went through while in La Cabana. He was jailed for what the new Cuban government deemed as counter revolutionary poetry.

http://www.canoe.ca/Travel/Caribbean/Cuba/2003/11/02/244609.html This is a travel site where they go into detail on how a tourist can tour La Cabana and see Che's office as well as the bullet holes in the walls from the firing squads.

---

In the article his name is "Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna" - how comes that i cannot find anything about the "Rafael" in his name. If I search for his whole name as wikipedia tells me, i can find only wikipedian articles. Has anybody a source where I can find the true name? 80.142.243.150 16:29, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:4kIZV2_6NSgJ:cheguevara.info/+ernesto+rafael+guevara&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

• thank you, Theanthrope, but even in this text the only rafael mentioned ist his father, to quote: "son of Ernesto Rafael Guevara Lynch" 217.255.176.234 20:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

According to Cuban refugee and CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, (who himself lost many family members in the Cuban revolution) who was present at Guevara's capture, as soldiers approach Guevara, he shouted, "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead."

Seriously what is this stuff worth ?

I think it add more detail to the death of Guevara. If you dont like it too bad. It still falls well within Wikipedia's posting guidelines. TDC

Ericd 21:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people, especially idealistic American youth from the 1960s, revered Che as a sort of working-class hero. (I think they were either self-deceived or short-sighted, and that Communist "freedom fighters" created worse problems than they solved, but hey I'm a brainwashed Moonie cultist so what do I know? ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, seriously what is a CIA agent testimony worth ? And what brings the fact that he lost family member's except that it's emotionnal ? And even if it's true what does it means ? What is Christ himself supposed to have said on the cross ? Ericd 21:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um, "Father, forgive them; they know what what they do"? --Uncle Ed 21:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, Guevara was no Messiah it would be better to emphasize on the sillyness of his theories.

I'm unable to quote the Bible in English but in French it's "Père éloigne ce calice de moi !", it's generally interpreted as showing that Jesus had the sense of self preservation and thus was human...

Ericd 21:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am still disturbed by the edits of 66.170.162.***. Whoever this is keeps reverting changes back to a non-neutral POV, and because the person logs in anonymously, we cannot discuss it with 66.170.162.***. Who ever you are, please either register or keep your edits neutral. I am ready to report this entry as being vandalized. Punkche 16:20 6 Feb. 2004 (MST)

---

Felix Rodriquez was not present at Guevara's capture. No US agents or soldiers were. He never said that he was at the capture, though Guevara's quote of "I'm worth more alive to you than dead" is widely reported. We must call into question Rodriguez's honesty, for he claims he killed Guevara. It is commonly agreed that he was lying, trying to make himself look better in the eyes of opponents of the Cuban Revolution. I will make edits where appropriate. Punkche 17:20 7 Feb 2004 (MST)

As you can see from the photo, Rodriquez was present at the capture and execution of Guevara. And, he did say he was present. When Che was captured it was Rodriguez who interrogated him. After his execution he took Che's Rolex watch as a souvenir (he still wears it today). TDC

That picture is of Che and Rodriguez at the La Higuera schoolhouse. Rodriguez arrived there the day after Guevara was captured. According to Rodriguez, he heard of Guevara's capture while rigging government aircraft on October 8th, and relayed the message to the CIA and left for La Higuera. This is according to the Author of "Shadow Warrior," John Weisman's, interview with Rodriguez on June 16, 1995. Punkche

This article is turning into crap !

Ericd 21:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And why is this article turning into crap? Is it because some of us dont buy into your version of comrade Che as some kind of communist Jesus Christ superstar and have evidence to back it up? TDC

It is turning into crap because it's seems t~hat NPOV isn't in the project of some contributors.

Ericd 22:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Try all contributors. TDC

If we quit bickering and try to stop inserting POV entries into the article, this article will stay good. I think we have some issues because people for and against Che have a lot of passion about the issue, but that should not neutralize the NPOV objectives of the Wikipedia.

In my own research for the article, I've used both Che's own writings and, in regards to his death, the most neutral book I've found on Che, "The Fall of Che Guevara" by Henry Butterfield Ryan. A lot of the information posted recently has contradicted first hand accounts of Che's death and this book in particular. If we say "some people say _______ and some say ______" that will end up NPOV, as opposed to "Che was a coward and died like one," or "Che was the best revolutionary in history."

I strongly disagree with TDC about all contributers being POV. The issues that have been brought up by the nearly vandelous anonymous posts have been addressed. Che's tenure at the La Higuera Fortress and the executions there have been added, though without the extremely inflated 5,000-10,000 numbers that cannot be corraborated. Is this a worthy edit, or do you consider it POV, TDC?

punkche 19:45, 13 Feb, 2004 (MST)

Somewhere along the way, in the contentious editing of the material on Rodriguez's account of the execution, the following phrase was removed by TDC: "and that, as he was about to be shot, despite the wounds to his legs Che stood up to take the bullets." TDC, was this removed (apparently without comment) because you believe there is no evidence that Rodriguez said that (which may be true, but merits discussion here)? Or because you thought it unimportant (which seems an odd decision)? Or just were you just quietly removing material that isn't politically to your liking (which seems out of line if the material is decently sourced and germane)? -- Jmabel 21:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I want to add that I do not believe Rodriguez is a good source of information, and he is the one who relates this information. If that information is added back into the article, I think we must explain Rodriguez's motivations for claiming he killed Guevara, and how propping Guevara up as a hero played into Rodriguez's account. Punkche Punkche 08:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me, it's just odd that when the anecdote about the watch was added, this was removed. I agree that Rodriguez is, at best, a compromised witness, but there really aren't any entirely trusted and neutral witnesses to Che's last days, are there? It's probably with recounting the material, with appropriate qualifications, but I was just concerned that if we are going to quote Rodriguez it's particularly inappropriate to leave out those statements in his account that redound to Che's credit. -- Jmabel 09:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Here's a link to the famous 1965 letter : http://www.sozialistische-klassiker.org/Che/Chee07.html How can you infer something about "nuclear first strike". Ericd 19:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because that is his April 1st farewell letter, not his letter to Castro commenting on the Cuban missile crisis. TDC 01:13, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Give a source for the letter commenting on the Cuban missile crisis please. Ericd 07:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John Gerassi, The Speeches and Writings of Ernesto Che Guevara TDC 13:54, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Can we please get the sources of this obviously controversial material into the article, or else this is just going to flare up into a fight every 2 months. -- Jmabel 17:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

In many countries of the world what is the normal penalty for traitors during a war ? Ericd 20:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, from my knowledge, which I would almost guarantee is greater than yours on the UMCOJ, there is a general court martial, a trial, and sentence. That sentence can range from imprisonment to death. They dont just take suspected traitors out in the street and shoot them. TDC 20:23, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

That's cool. How's your knowledge of the UCMJ?

I do not follow? TDC 02:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

And what kind of trial had Guevara ? Ericd 21:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How the fuck should I know? Guevara was a foreign fighter stirring up a hornets nest. Anyways, it is not relavent, so go find a zippo and torch your little straw man. TDC 23:23, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier remark: can we please get the sources of this obviously controversial material into the article. A large piece of this article is turning into a collection of unattributed claims. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a diatribe. And I was worried that I might have been a bit polemical in Hunger Circus? Also, the talk page is supposed to be a discussion and a forum for a difficult collaboration, not a place to insult each other. And, by the way, the word is spelled "relevant." -- Jmabel 00:09, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well la-tee-da college boy. I already gave the source.

John Gerassi, The Speeches and Writings of Ernesto Che Guevara TDC 00:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Can you please quote the speech ?

Ericd 03:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC is it your source ?http://noleaders.net/anok/reports/chewasastalinistfuck.htm]

Source on what area? I did not use that website if that is what you are implying. TDC 04:58, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I should conclude that you use both the same sources ? But which one.

Ericd 05:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to this site http://www.cubaliberal.org/english/040308-killerchic.htm Guevara is supposet to have wrote in his diary :

"I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal. He gasped for a little while and was dead. Upon proceeding to remove his belongings I couldn¹t get off the watch tied by a chain to his belt, and then he told me in a steady voice farther away than fear: "Yank it off, boy, what does it matterŠ" I did so and his possessions were now mine." It seems to be reported in the "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 652." The problem is that I can't find this in Guevara diary see http://chehasta.narod.ru/traitor.htm I'd like to know if you have a good primary source ? Ericd 05:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In La Cabana Fortress all the person sentenced to death had a lawyer an could form an appeal, thus I revert.

Ericd 17:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As laughable as the idea of a Cuban kangaroo court is, I was not refering to the "Trials" at La Caban, but rather Che's judge jury and executioner approach during the revolution. Thus I revert. Booyah. TDC 18:04, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Your text is unclear please rewrite. BTW, how many executions during the revolution reported in Guevara's diary ? Do you have other sources ?

Ericd 18:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

abominable

i think the most recent version of the che guevara page is an offence to his memory. i find it hard to believe that such disregard for neutrality has been allowed to pervade on this site for so long. the article is poorly written, inaccurate and takes infomation from sources that are clearly biased towards an american style world view, as does the author.

now im not saying che guevara was perfect but an entry of this nature does need to at least cover all aspects of his life - birth to death - this article however focuses on on the latter half of his life and furthermore distorts the relationship that che guevara had with fidel castro once the revoloution had been carried out.

in short im going to ask for the page to be deleted and started from scratch - to be written by a group of people that can come up with a less biased entry than this insult.

You're wasting your time, the article isn't going to get deleted. Discuss what you think is wrong with it here, on the talkpage. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 05:03, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Quotations

We've been accumulating an awful lot of quotes lately. Cut down to three or less, move the rest to WikiQuote & link there? -- Jmabel 18:17, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Also, that section on ideology is a mess, just a bunch of muddled quotes. -- Viajero 18:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I started rewriting/reorganizing the article on my MS Word browser, hoping to integrate more of a stress on ideology with a chronologically organized biography. As of this edit, the work is incomplete. If some of the text got scattered around in the process, please go ahead and revert my changes. 172 11:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I still need to work on a number of rough patches, but I'm getting too tired now. 172

Outstanding job, 172. One comment: it has been said that Che made a tactical error in Bolivia; that he would have found far more support among the highly unionized and radicalized miners in the altiplano than he found among the campesinos in the lowlands of Santa Cruz. I don't know however whether this is too speculative to be added, and if not, where it would be appropriate to mention it. -- Viajero 21:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In with some certainly good recent edits...

"...he completed his medical studies while intensifying his study of Marxism," became "he completed his medical studies as quickly as he could to enable him to continue his adventures travelling around South America." I don't know the facts here, so I'm just flagging it. -- Jmabel 02:35, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is featured article candidate

This article is currently nominated for featured status (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates). It wasn't a self-nomination and there were a few objections, I am taking it upon myself to try to resolve the objections so we can get this very good article featured. The most visible change is that I am going to remove the infobox. It is not standard for biographical articles, and the data it adds is (or at least should be in the lead section) anyway. If you think this is wrong, it would be helpful if you could reply at the candidates pages as well as here. (i.e. don't just kill the messenger :-)). Pcb21| Pete 17:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Info box removed.

Another objection on that page is that there are too many quotes, and that some or all should be removed to wikiquote, and an external link added. Do you agree? If so, which, if any, are the most significant quotes that should be kept? Pcb21| Pete 18:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I nominated it, I figured I could do something vaguely useful. I have reduced the number of quotes to five, based on those that appealed to me than any kind of historical significance, and added link to a very comprehensive page at Wikiquote. Palnu 21:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Iconic Image

This image appears to be copyrighted: see Image_talk:Cheicon.jpg. I don't see any fair use argument for using it here. I suggest that we remove the image from here, and incorporate a text reference to Che Guevara (photo), where its use is justifiable under fair use. Markalexander100 09:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That picture is everywhere. Who has it copyrighted? --Tothebarricades.tk 12:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Read Che Guevara (photo). BTWI'm the one who noticed that this picture wasn't public domain. I think we are not in contradiction with Korda but Markalexander100 & 172 seems to see thing differently. However I wonder if Korda's heirs can claim copyright on Fitzpatrick's work and if Fitzpatrick can claim copyright on Andy Warhol's work ?

Ericd 16:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've made some minor adjustments. The only significant change was deleting "As a consequence" from the Congo section- his success in the Cuban fighting implies that he wasn't totally incompetent, and there are other reasons for failure in the Congo mentioned in the article. Markalexander100 06:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great improvement Guys ! We have byzantine discussion about the use of the Korda's photo that isn't fully public domain, and we replace it with a famous photo taken by René Burri (I think) which isn't at all public domain. Ericd 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Korda's photo that isn't fully public domain Like my slightly pregnant girlfriend. Anyway, we now have a nice PD version. Which is the Burri pic? Markalexander100 11:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This one File:Che guevara black and white bust photograph.jpg.

My two cents that this one was on the same roll http://www.museodellafotografia.it/Mostre/mostre%20di%20attualita/attualita/Che%20Guevara%20-%20di%20Ren%E8%20Burri/Ren%E8%20Burri%20-%20Magnum%20Photos%20-%20Che%20Guevara.html

Ericd 21:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added that to the page info. I think a portrait is fair use, anyway. Markalexander100 04:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Replaced image with Image:Che.png, which seems to be PD. Listed the old image for IfD -- Chris 73 Talk 15:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lynch

I notice that "Lynch" was recently edited in, then back out, of Guevara's name. I know I have seen him referred to as "Che Guevara Lynch" and Google shows 314 hits for this. Does anyone know exactly what the story is, and might it merit at least an aside or even and a.k.a. in the article? -- Jmabel 18:16, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Che's full name is Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. His father's name is Ernesto Guevara Lynch; a reference to some Irish heritage in the family. To use Lynch in this article would be incorrect. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 12:21, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Bolivia Dates

Can someone expound on the dating of events in the section on Bolivia. Not a single year is mentioned throughout that section. The last previous date is 1965, the year he went missing. And there's not even a year of death given; one has to glean that from the headers at the beginning of the article. This all leaves the reader knowing month/day dates, but left wondering which years between 1965 and 1967 all of it really took place. Thanks --patton1138 20:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He died between the 8th and the 10th of october 1967

I've added dates to The Bolivian Diary section and reworded it slightly:

"Also removed was Guevara's diary, which documented events in the guerrilla war being fought in Bolivia. The first entry is on 7th November 1966 shorty after Guevara's arrival at a farm in the Bolivian jungle and the last entry is on 7th October 1967 just before his capture. The diary tells how the guerillas are forced to begin operations due to discovery by the Bolivian Army, the eventual split of the group, and their general failure."--Garsanllean 13:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Motorcycle Diaries...

I just saw the film The Motorcycle Diaries yesterday, and there were some inconsistancies between the story told here and the film's version. I do not mean to suggest this article is incorrect, only that the discrepancies deserve investigation:

• Alberto Granado Was a biochemist, and not a doctor.
• Did Ernesto ever complete his medical degree? According to the film version, he leaves his university with a term incomplete.
• What happened after his tour with Alberto? We know he went on to help lead a revolution, however what occured between these events?
• The ages 23 and 29 are reversed in the movie. And the dictation of the diary is performed not by Che, but my Ernesto.

--Salimfadhley 02:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guevera completed his medical degree after his travel around South America. Ericd

A biochemist is (I think) a doctor who focuses on pharmilogicals. As for your third point, I think Che wrote a book about it, but I can't be sure. Jonked Nov. 20, 2004

dealing sanely with incendiary material

The passage beginning, "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary..." needs more of a citation than "Guevara would later write...". These are incendiary words. I have no idea whether he wrote them or not, and if so I have no idea in what context, nor does "Guevara would later write..." give me any way to verify or falsify the claim. I'm not going to edit it right now, but if no one provides a citation in the next few days, I will probably feel free simply to delete it as an unverifiable claim. -- Jmabel 19:06, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just see above~discussion these kind of quotes without source aren't acceptable IMO. Ericd 19:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have found a source, but what kind of source are we looking for? My source is an article with a quote attributed to Guevara, but I will look for a prime source if you want. Realistically though, how many people would honestly be surprised if this turns out to be a verifiable quote? TDC 19:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if it's real, nor will I be surprised if it's not. A primary source would, of course, be best. Second best is something which, in turn, has a clear citation of a primary source. Otherwise, it should not be "Guevara would later write..." but "according to [whatever], "Guevara later wrote..." -- Jmabel 19:52, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's been 4 more days, and all we have is TDC's assertion that he's seen an unspecified article that attributes the quote to Guevara. I am pulling the paragraph from the article to be restored when it has a citation. -- Jmabel 20:36, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Guevara would later write: "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of The Wall!"

Date of birth

There are two different dates of birth given by different sources: 14 June 1928 and 14 May 1928.

• Through most of the early history of this article, the date of birth was given as June 14, 1928.
• On 2 Sep 2004, an anon changed the article to say May 14, 1928, without giving any explanation.
• On 17 Sep 2004, another anon changed the article back to say June 14, 1928, just saying "Date of birth" in the edit summary.
• On 17 Sep 2004, yet another anon posted a message at the Wikipedia:Reference desk pointing out that May 14 was the correct date.
• On 18 Sep 2004, I did some googling to verify the claim, and edited the article accordingly.

—AlanBarrett 10:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The changes started again. Could this be solved once for ever with relevant reference? Quick googling shown different dates. Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Seconded. Does someone know what's going on here? Probably if a false date of birth is widely circulated that deserves a note in the article. In any case, it appears that a citation is in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• The story goes that he was born a few months before the official date of June 14th, but their parents tryed to hide the fact that she was pregnant when they married. this german site gives May 14th as the real date and June 14th as the official one. I suggest we put the official date in the heading, and then a comment on the uncertanty of another real date, suggesting May 14th as the most possible or accepted.

Here's also another good, very detailed biografy in spanish. --Marianocecowski 07:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The German site you cited, by the way, is just a mirror of de:Che Guevara. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Both Che guevara nació and Che Guevara born only give 14 June so I have just reverted the revert back to that, and the bit saying his true date of birth was another dqay has been removed as unsourced. i see no evidence that he was born other than on June 14, --SqueakBox 02:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of the controversy about the date of birth at http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/anderson-guevara.html where the assertion is made that the actual date of birth was a month earlier. His mother apprently reported later in life that she had the date changed on the birth certificate to avoid a scandal in the Roman Catholic society where she lived. The accurate date of birth seems likely to be May 14 rather than June 14, 1928, if the report of the mother's correction is accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.17.201 (talk • contribs) 10 Sept 2005.

Why the box?

It dosen't seem to give any information that isn't equally readily available in the opening paragraph, and merely clutters up the page, nor have I seen boxes in widespread use for people across the wikipedia. I think it should be removed, unless some use can be found for it - say putting links to the article about the "Che Photo" or some fact that is not right there next to it in the introduction. (unsigned)

Valladares

> Has anybody a source for this statement ? In my opinion this is propaganda - Valladares is not a peaceful poet but was police officer during the Baptista era and was convicted for conducting terrorist bombings.

In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners.

Turrican

I wondered where you obtained your information that Armando Valladares was a Batista era police official, so I did a bit of digging. Seems as is your source was the Granma Internationale article written on the heels of a UN resolution condemning the human rights situation in Cuba [1]. Execelent source, but a few problems, Valladares was only 19 when Batista was sent packing. Highly unlikely that he was, as the Granma article suggested, a high ranking Police official.

Nothing more pathetic that someone who cant just take his lickings and leave. No wonder you love Taliban so much. TDC 15:49, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest, though, that what Granma claims is worth reporting, even if to follow with refutation, with citations on the Granma quote and on Valladares's age.

Turrican, it's "Batista", not "Baptista" (which wouldn't be Spanish at all: "Bautista" is imaginable, but wrong, "Baptista" is just weird).

TDC, what's this crack about loving the Taliban? That's the kind of remark that gets people banned from Wikipedia, and I think appropriately so. -- Jmabel 17:38, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Loving the Taliban is reference to a longstanding dispute that Turrican and I have had over the US Invasion of Afghanistan article and this cute reference [2]. But I suppose I should keep the tit for tat to a bare minnimum.

But at any rate, I question the inclusion of the Granma article because if we allow it would we allow by extension the inclusion of any source information on any topic? Should there be a line at which we do not cross when including references? Is the information included in some reference so ridiculous, such as a 19 year old high ranking police official, so shaky that is does no deserve note?

I would like ot hear your thoughts on this. TDC 17:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ207.html

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ105.html

http://www.cubasocialista.com/orgeng4.htm#Armando

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=172

http://www.cubasolidarity.net/rights.html - The "Poet " Cops

I get a 404 when trying the Granma-Url. None of my sources wrote about him being a high police offical, just a police officer. What they all write is that he was indicted for terrorism and that he it seems that some claims about him - for example his not being able to walk seem to be quite untrue. Also, somehow his output as a poet seems to have rather stopped since he left prison. Considering this, I question the validity of his claims about Che Guevara.

Jmabel : TDC and I have agreed on a truce and will at least try to be civil to each other. Besides I do not really feel offended by it, since it is so obviously untrue.

Turrican

Where to begin. Valladares is not the only source for Che’s activates while head of La Cabana. Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, states quite clearly in the book that Guevara ordered and over saw the execution of hundreds political prisoners. Many of these were fellow revolutionaries, but did not support the new Communist government. He also details in the book Guevara’s personal hand in the interrogation of former Batista big wigs. Anderson’s book, it must be noted, is extremely sympathetic to Guevara.

There are many who survived La Cabana who also confirm this.

Dr. Emilio-Adolfo Rivero Caro, another Anti-Batista dissident, was sentenced to 30 years at La Cabana after publicaly denouncing the new Castro regime in 1961. He has stated quite clearly that he and nearly every other prisoner he had contact with were tortured and forced to sign confessions and were summarily executed. Caro also claims that Guevara was present at least one of his interrogations, where he was beaten until he passed out. Caro "confessed" to heroine smuggling, and sat in La Cabana until 1980.

As for the allegations made against Valladares, I think your sources may be a shade biased. I dug into the NYT’s archives and found an article detailing his arrival in Paris. It is a UPI release and describes and emaciated Valladares needing the help of several people to leave the plane. It also details him embracing his wife, and then being taken via wheel chair to a nearby ambulance and then to a hospital (NYT October 23, 1982 pages 1 and 2). While technically true that he walked out of the plane, he did this with the assistance of several people. As for his being a Batista police, he makes no mention of this in his autobiography and denies the terrorism charges. He also never mentioned that he was paralyzed, just crippled from his abuse. TDC 22:09, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, when you say hundreds in that book by Jon Lee Anderson, I think you mean 55. PunkChe 10/20/2004

Great theoretician

"...many supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements still regard Guevara as a great theoretician and tactician of asymmetric warfare." This is wrong : most people think that Guevara theories about Guerilla proved their inefficiency. Ericd 08:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that "many supporters of" and "most people" are mutually exclusive. e.g. "Most people think Guevara's theories about guerilla warfare proved their inefficiency but many supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements still regard Guevara as a great theoretician" is a plausible statement. I don't know whether it is true (this is not my field) but it is not contradictory. --Jll 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence in the article is confused - "While his critics regard him as totalitarian Communist, many supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements still regard Guevara as a great theoretician and tactician of asymmetric warfare." is talking about two separate things - i.e. being a totalitarian communist would not presumably in itself prevent him from being a great theoretician. --Jll 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, but Guevara is not considered as a great strategist, or a great tactician or a great theorician of guerilla warfare (even by marxists). His failure in Bolivia was the result of many mistakes. Guevara his respected by many -even if they aren't "supporters of Third World socialist revolutionary movements"- for his sincerity. Many even think that he was both a totalitarian Communist and really sincere man. Ericd 19:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Ericd here. This is part of the same mess I refer to in the next section. -- Jmabel 22:32, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

recent changes

Could someone look through the recent changes? It seems to me like some utter crap keeps getting cut and restored (along with some worthwhile material). E.g. it is certainly not only Che's opponents who consider him a Communist; conversely, his initial problem with the U.S. was not just that it was unfriendly toward revolutionary Communist governments in Latin America, but toward anything seriously populist... -- Jmabel 22:30, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with "populist" because a lot of times it's a term used by people who did not want to admit that specific governments were inclined toward communism. The U.S. was primarily hostile toward countries more inclined toward the Second World than the First. For example, Omar Torrijos of Panama is said to have led a "military socialist," populist-style dictatorship in his wikipedia article and the U.S. never raised serious objections because he never moved toward the Soviet bloc. Contrast that with Cuba, which Eisenhower feared was going to welcome Soviet influence (the no-compensation nationalizations hurt dominant U.S. economic interests, but they could also be taken as a sign that Castro was Communist-inclined. And we know he resented the U.S. for its previous indifference toward Batista's actions within Cuba, so embracing the USSR could be a logical step from that. We also know that Che was always a committed Marxist, not a left-wing populist, and that he played a prime role in the new government.) There's also other examples, such as Duarte in El Salvador, who nationalized some industries but remained pro-American. Of course it was initially Carter's idea to welcome the coup in 1979, but the Reagan admin. gave him support in '84. Trey Stone 03:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record ; The US was and is not only unfriendly towards "populist" governments but to any governments which either wanted to stay neutral in the cold war or which are even slighty critical of the concept of being an imperial possession of the US and the therefrom resulting economical exploitation. Just look at Venezuela if you want to see another case of a democratic government under attack by the US. Turrican

Well, I'd say that Hugo Chavez is, precisely, populist, but in any case I don't disagree. The thing is that the article has been modified, for example, from "...Jacobo Arbenz Guzman headed a populist government..." to "...Jacobo Arbenz Guzman headed a socialist government..." and from "...the United States would always oppose governments that attempted to address the dire social inequities in Latin America and in other developing countries of the world." to "the United States would always staunchly oppose leftist or Marxist governments in Latin America and the Third World, which he believed were necessary to remedy the extreme disparities of wealth present in such countries." I don't have a problem with the "he believed" part in the latter, but my point is that this was not strictly about U.S. opposition to Marxism, but to any Latin American government that put its own people before U.S. economic interests. -- Jmabel 04:09, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not gonna dispute UFC's heavy influence in Guatemala, but important facts about Arbenz go unmentioned, such as that he won an election in which his primary opponent Francisco Araña was killed, his ties with the Guatemalan Communist Party (more than just "he legalized it,") and that he purged the Supreme Court when it wouldn't accept his land reform proposal. Now there is a perfectly legitimate case that he could do all this and be better for the country than the generals who followed him, but they should be pointed out. As for the U.S.'s "economic hegemony," again I'm not saying our foreign policy is selfless (just that it's not as selfish as a lot of lefties like to believe) but it should be presented in an NPOV way -- ie, from Che's perspective. Trey Stone 02:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this is the case the original content should be restored. Such articles as this are prime targets of the US History Rewriting & War Crimes Whitewashing Squad and therefore need to be guarded carefully.

Turrican

Troll Linking

I just reverted an attempt by anon 200.148.89.89 to add two links to "the real che guevara" type articles, badly written rants on how Che was a godless commie that have no value to wikipedia. I've seen much better pages that make a case against Che Guevara, and I myself don't agree with everything he did, but that was just a classic case of internet evangelism. Any objections? --Che y Marijuana 17:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Che y Marijuana ?

Clearly you are a Che simpathizer - just looking at your profile - How can you criticize the two non aligned articles posted? "..how Che was a godless commie that have no value to wikipedia" The Che-lives link have any value to Wikipedia ??? Just for simpathizers and marxists like you. Wikipedia must contain divergent views of the issues, not propaganda.

The two links are * The Real Che by Anthony Daniels and * The Real Che by Humberto Fontova

since you took the time to write out a response, I will discuss this and not revert. If you want me to find you good discussions against Che, I will, but those aren't them. I don't consider myself so much of a "sympathizer", this is just an internet name I took years ago that stuck. I'm now an Anarcho-Marxist, and Che was pretty much a Stalinist, so you can see why I'm not really a "sympathizer". Let me get into those links now:

Mike Tyson used to end fights with his arms upraised in triumph. Then he got a Che Guevara tattoo. Now he ends fights on the ground, a bloodied mess, battered and bowed, pounded almost beyond recognition...Tyson was jinxed by that Che tattoo. There's no other explanation. Somebody should have enlightened mighty Mike about the real Che Guevara.

Che was hell on smiting his enemies, all right – thousands of them – but only when they were bound, gagged and blindfolded. I'm afraid the Boxing Federation doesn't allow that. In anything like a fair fight Che was consistently routed, stomped and humiliated.

Self-explanatory I think, does this seem like a useful link to you?

The second one, actually, the Anthony Daniels, I don't have a problem with. I disagree with it, but it is well thought out, and maintains a semblence of professionalism, whereas the first one is a rant.

I ask that you label that it is an alternative view, put in brackets, and if possible move it down :P That one is actually useful. Good compromise?--Che y Marijuana 23:44, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

death order

"The CIA wanted to keep him alive for interrogation, but he was executed by the Bolivian army" was recently changed by User:Db pr, who has no other contributions to Wikipedia, to say, "And he was later killed by a bolivian soldier under CIA orders." No comment was made, no citation was provided, and I believe the change is factually wrong. I am reverting, but will happily yield if there is solid citation to back it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.)

But where is the evidence to support the assertion that the CIA "wanted to keep him alive for interrogation"?--Garsanllean 11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Change in photo

The new lead photo added by User:SecretAgentMan00 has no information at all about provenance. I have no idea what the rights situation on it is. I also have no idea why it is to be preferred to the photo it replaced. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's been replaced -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The CIA is a bunch of philistines and should not have murdered or ordered the murder of a legendry superfighter

Indeed i have seen from a documentary on Che made by a german film crew ( i can give you the name of the video, i beleive its called the Bolivian Diary) and also from a large work on Che simply titled "Che: A revolutionary life" by john lee anderson. the account of his death is also consistent with the documentary. Che was killed by a bolivian soldier under orders from the president of Bolivia and a CIA man was present.

Is the subtitle reflecting the article?

I am not sure if this characterization reflects the contents of the article: "Pot-smokin' hippie and pseudo-intellectual/guerrilla extraordinaire"

Where are the hippie references, and why "pseudo-" before the intellectual ?

- left, unsigned by User:Sgouris, who has no other edits.

Interesting that your comment shows up a full day after this brief vandalism was fixed. Having fun? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Che in Congo Changes

the version i edited said something about and "ill, humiliated" che, that doesnt align with his personality, i edited for a more NPOV approach to the real fact that it is unknown the REAL reason for Che's departure who was sad about the situation there but never mentioned being humliated or something like that, i hope peopl see my changes as something positive for the NPOV of the whole article --Gotten 21:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

His recently released diaries are quite clear why he left the Congo. TDC 22:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Still "humiliated" is not the right word, and i dont see the reason to delete "An intellectual and a thinker, Che believed in putting his theories into action." i ask you to discuss this with facts, and lets reach a concesus about how to put more neutrally Che Guevara's departure from Congo... --Gotten 23:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Prison term

Why was the portion about his term at the prison removed? (unsigned, 24 Dec 2004)