Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 15

Planned article revert
Consensus has developed on the featured article review that the article should be reverted to one of these versions:

and rebuilt from there.
 * Featured version, March 10, 2006 (42 KB readable prose)
 * After main page appearance, June 19, 2006 (46 KB readable prose)

Please discuss and develop consensus here for which of the two versions is the best revert target. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Several questions/clarifications: you state "consensus has developed" ... exactly how was that was achieved, how many people were consulted, and when/where did it take place? I am aware of the fact that 3-4 people (1 overtly bias and one who arose out of nowhere) had mentioned that they felt the article had contained POV issues, but that was before Matisse and Polaris did extensive cleaning up. Has the article been examined recently? Also under what/whose authority has it been decided that a revert will be the course of action? Redthoreau (talk TR 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the FAR page linked above? Your questions are answered there.  As of now, you are the only editor opposing a revert.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also noting that the FAR has been up since 23 February and all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects have been notified. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing Support for revert, see note in next section. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Choice of versions
My preference would be for the earlier March 10 version because it is 10 kbs shorter and the writing cleaner. I think the POV has started to set in by the June 19 version. That version ends with the view of Che Guevara as "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle." This is the sort of statement I feel does not belong in the main article, as it represents a narrow global view and is culturally bound to a certain political view and even a particular age group. Mattisse 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with Mattisse. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll accept either of the two versions, but agree that the brevity of the earlier version provides the cleanest starting place. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw support: to my surprise, I have only realized in the last hour that the target versions (March 2006 and June 2006) in fact do not reflect Zleitzen's work on the article.  According to article stats, Zleitzen did not begin editing the article until August 2006, so in fact, reverting to the March 2006 will undo the work Zleitzen put into the article rather than reinstate it.  I'm mystified that no one here pointed this out earlier, as it must have been apparent that I was working under the mistaken assumption that the March 2006 version would get us closer to the kind of sourcing preferred by Zleitzen, when in fact, that is apparently not correct.  Certainly, the article has significantly deteriorated since Zleitzen stopped editing in July 2007, but I no longer believe that March 2006 is the best target date for a revert.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Steps to restore
Several questions were raised on the featured article review. No, reverting doesn't affect the talk page, and no, a sandbox version of the original featured version isn't needed (it's in the article history). Someone may want to save a sandbox version of the current version, so that anything you later want to retrieve from it can easily be found. I offer to do the initial steps in the revert, including an tag as needed until I'm finished, once the version is decided. Steps to restoring will include:


 * 1. Revert to the chosen version.  (I offer to complete all of the steps in 1)
 * 1a. Reinstate infobox from current version
 * 1b. Reinstate from current version categories, interwikis, nav templates at the bottom of the page, persondata; in short, everything in the current bottom of the article from down.
 * 1c. Reinstate sister links from current version
 * 1d. Review for current WP:MOS standards, add ISBNs, do basic ref formatting cleanup to a consistent ref style (thru 1c will take me a few minutes once I start; 1d could take me a full day)
 * 2. Before any other changes are made:
 * 2a. Recheck all hatnote template links at tops of sections
 * This step includes making sure any new daughter articles (created since the featured version) are linked somewhere in the article; perhaps begin now to make a list of daughter articles?
 * 2b. Verify that all external links in sources are still live, some may need to be retrieved from the internet archive (www.archive.org) or from the current version.  Restore and update all dead links: Check external links
 * 2c. Verify that all wikilinks are still accurate (this will be time consuming, regular editors may want to divide up the work and go through each section, checking on old links that may have changed or new articles that may have been added and need to be linked).  Be aware of WP:MOSLINK and WP:OVERLINKing.
 * 3. Once it is determined that the article is completely restored, further work needed before content changes begin:
 * 3a. Scan the article and identify any outdated info, such as anything beginning with "as of".
 * 3b. Review for citations needed
 * Note: Zleitzen's version (rightly) used scholarly sources that may not be available online.
 * 3c. Decide which images to bring forward from current version
 * 4. Begin content revisions
 * 4a. Review for POV
 * 4b. Discourage addition of any new cruft that isn't specifically justified, for example, per WP:EL or content that is already included or should be included in daughter articles.
 * 4c. Update as needed.
 * 4d. Review again for current WP:MOS standards

I believe those are the steps; please indicate anything I've missed so I can add it in. I also suggest allowing a few days to be certain consensus has formed before beginning this work. Discussion of the article should be on the article talk page; as the FAR moves along, others will be reading that page, and it isn't helpful to fill it up with unnecessary chatter and detail that can be dealt with on the article talk page. The FAR page should be used for determining whether the article meets or not featured standards. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time to help, but I just had a glance at this; it looks reasonable. Should we make a workspace page for sorting out problematic links, or should we just plan on fixing them in place? I would think a workspace page would be useful, because it would allow a complete list of all the links that had issues and then make it clear what has been done about each of them. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to you! If you think a workspace page would be useful, then that is fine with me. I have never been involved in such a major project as this revert, so any advice/help from you is welcome. Polaris999 will be very happy. Your method sounds like a good way of organizing this.  Mattisse  21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Jmabel -- It is great to see you here!! -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have been involved in several undertakings of this nature (the most difficult, Asperger syndrome remains featured and is a fine article). In one case, because a revert to a much older version was done without advance notice, without cooperation, and without a plan, the article ended up defeatured.  If everyone isn't on board, the endeavour will not likely succeed and is not worth attempting.  Unless there is concurrence, the article should just remain tagged and be defeatured. Civility and cooperation over the very long haul are key.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we settled over who will do what? As I understand it, SandyGeorgia will do Step 1 tomorrow (Thursday). After Sandy is done, Polaris999 will handle template problems and such,  while Jmabel  will have the list of the links on a workpage and check them. I am willing to do the hatnote links.  I can check the wikilinks. Then, at Step 3 I believe we should reconnoiter and gain consensus before deciding on images, quality of replacement sources, etc. Is this to your understanding, Sandy?   Mattisse  13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm busy most of today (Wednesday), intend to do all of Step 1 tomorrow (Thursday) unless consensus changes, and btw I have jury duty beginning (and hopefully ending) on Friday.  I'll leave most of the rest to all of you, and weigh in as needed, mostly watching that MoS is followed, refs are clean, consensus is respeced, and so on.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Work on article
It seems to me that Step two is fairly uncontroversial and any problems can be brought to the talk page. I am certainly willing to list hatnotes and check wikilinks. I know some of the external links to sources are dead. Polaris999 probably has the off line sources Zleitzen had (I'm guessing), and he probably is best for replacing dead reference links. Also, searches of standard sources such as BBC News will probably due for standard biographical stuff. Polaris999 and I are adamant that only sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS be used. We can discuss any problems on the talk page. Polaris999 has said he will do the template stuff. As far as citation style, I am used to WP:CITE but will use what ever is preferred for the article.

At step three, we will discuss issues of image and vet all citations on the talk page. At step four, of course, we will have to discuss. My view is that Guevara had been dead for over 50 years. Overly detailed descriptions, controversies, and legacy issues can take place in daughter articles. Much of the controversy now about Che has little to do with him as a person, in my opinion, and more with our collective state of mind today. My view is that if we cannot settle on a consensus regarding wording, then leave whatever it is out.

Hopefully, by concentrating on the task at hand we will quickly develop a good working group so that POV issues can be rationally discussed, allowing for differing view to arrive at compromises. Mattisse 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope there will be an attempt to avoid citing the popular press (BBC for example) when better scholarly or academic sources are available. Also, the featured version did not use cite templates, I personally hate them since they chunk up the article size and loadtime so badly, and if you intend to use them, you'll have to switch over all of the existing citations, which would be very time consuming.  Since WP:CITE says not to mix citation styles, and not to switch the original style used (specifically, not to switch to cite templates), I highly recommend sticking to the citation method established by Zleitzen.  WP:CITE guidelines dictate the same, unless there is consensus to change.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I will use whatever others are using for reference formatting. As far as sources, I only have a few books on Cuba, and none specifically on Che Guevara. I will have to count on Polaris999 then. Mattisse  20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I myself have almost every book on Che Guevara in print (20 +) and will be willing to look up issues in the ones I have. Also Matisse how much have you ever read or researched about Che Guevara? I ask because I would contend that context and point of view can only truly be judged with an in depth understanding of the subject matter, and would encourage everyone interested in formulating the new article, to first independently research the man in question. It could only enhance the final product. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon looking at the references in the version of March 10, I have all the print books Zleitzen uses. Mattisse  16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the March 10 version, I see some Geocities (personal, non-reliable sources) that will need to be replaced, so maybe you all can begin to look at those now. Also, I'll be putting a simpler and easier footnote style in place.  It's not necessary to repeat all of the information on each book source in every footnote when the book date is already listed in References.  That method just chunks up the text and makes it harder to edit.  So, I will change (for example):
 * Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 3
 * to
 * Anderson (1997), p. 3
 * Cleaner, simpler, easier. I'll do all of that sort of work while I have the article in use tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This posting has been delayed by an "edit conflict" -- Help, Mattisse! I am lost already. I do not know what I should be doing at this point, but I started looking at the refs and checking the URLs that many of them link to ... I am now more than halfway through this task and, even though I am not sure whether I am supposed to be doing it or not, I am documenting my work so that it at least can serve as a checklist if this is someone else's job. Are you working on the same thing? If so, please have a look at: User:Polaris999/workspace/newCG01. Also, I have a replacement template ready for use as per SandyGeorgia's instructions. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Polaris, do you know how to use http://www.archive.org ? You can look up dead links there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, SandyGeorgia. Yes, thank you, I do use archive.org.  However, whenever possible, I will opt for replacing references to URLs with books, per your recommendation. I am proceeding with the task of reviewing the refs as I don't imagine anyone will be too disappointed if they find it has been done :-)   When I finish it, I would very much appreciate having one or more of you review my work and make suggestions, additions, etc. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, if anyone wants to get on something today (I'm going to be out this afternoon), there is an ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage. We need a list of ISBN numbers for all the books.  I'd like to add those in while I'm working on the article tomorrow, and looking all of them up will slow me down.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty, since consensus hasn't changed, I'll put the article in use tomorrow (after I get through my morning watchlist), and start the revert. In case anyone is wondering, I could have done all of it in advance in a sandbox and then just popped it in with one edit, but I don't think that's a good way to go on a controversial article and a revert to a very old version. The reason I want to put it in use and go methodically step by step as outlined above is so that the article history will clearly show each step, and you all can follow along and feel comfortable with the work done. For such an old revert, popping in something I developed in sandbox might not inspire future confidence about the integrity of the revert, and doing it "live" will provide future transparency. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite.php
Actually, it was Jmabel and I who introduced the WP:CITE system into the CG article. At that time, "Che Guevara's Involvement in the Cuban Revolution" already existed as a separate entity and I did not convert its footnotes. Later when Zleitzen started working on it and expressed frustration about the deplorable state of its footnotes, rather than converting them all manually as I had done in the main CG article, I ran User:Cyde/Ref converter on them, with very satisfactory results. That discussion, and the results of running the converter can be seen here. If others are in agreement, I would favor using User:Cyde/Ref converter on whatever footnotes may need to be translated into WP:CITE style as a "first pass"; we can then refine the output as necessary. Mattisse, re finding needed citations in books I own, I will certainly be glad to do so, and am pleased to see that Redthoreau also has volunteered. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey! I did the same thing for Zleitzen when we were working on the Fidel Castro article!  Mattisse  23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only I did it by hand -- that was the olden days. Maybe you will shown me your automated way.  Mattisse  23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny! Certainly I will show you.  You might start by reading the link under "here" above. Actually, there is not much more to it than that ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "here" under "here". Did you mean to leave a link there? Mattisse  00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And now that I've read that link, I believe Polaris is confused. The CG article already uses the cite.php system, and there is nothing to be converted.  No wonder his info confused me, as I also used cyde in the olden days, but we are beyond that.  This article does use cite.php, and it already has ref tags.  What it doesn't use is cite templates (WP:CITET), which is a method for formatting citations within the ref tags.  I STRONGLY oppose switching styles (unless you all override me) because the cite templates chunk up the text, making it hard to copyedit and hard to read.  Please go back to the featured version and look at it in edit mode to see the refs it already has; there is no reason to waste time changing them to a clunky citation method.  I'll wait til you all catch up to undo the changes I did in the steps above.  Having to manually convert perfectly good citations to horrid cite templates will be a huge waste of time, IMO. I can clean up the ref formatting as part of step one, and we can continue with the same citation style used by Zleitzen, which is already in cite.php format. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Converter says all the footnotes are in the WP:CITE style, so no need to do anything except update them as a first step, I guess? Or provide better sources when available? -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Some of the ref formatting in the featured version is inconsistent although complete.  During Step 1, I will do the basic kind of ref cleanup I always do, leaving one bibliographic style in place that we can then follow throughout.  (Things like, journal names are italicized, newspaper title are in quotes, all authors with last name first, and so on.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. I will wait for you to assign me a specific task. -- Polaris999 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ugh, OK, I will add that step in the list above, which will be a factor that will slow things down. Polaris, are you going to handle that with Cyde?  I'll add it in above, and then we'll have to check that all is in order before moving forward.  That will change the order of things above.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it won't slow anything down -- I can do it myself and it will take about 30 seconds! -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I added that step in above, but we should make sure everything checks out before moving forward from there.  That means I'll have to do basic ref cleanup and ISBN additions after you convert.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with March 10th version to address
If there is a tidal wave to revert then I may not be able to stop it, and thus will accept it. However from reading the March 10th version I noticed some glaring issues that would have to be addressed, I believe in the new article, (Which I would want to be a part of crafting)

Problems with March 10th version that must be addressed ...

- “Revolutionary, politician, and Cuban guerrilla leader.” – no mention of him being an author ? He wrote more books during his lifetime than most authors. Also no mention of his contributions as a military tactician or social theorist ? His ideas involve philosophy just as much, if not more, than military theory.

- “Arbenz’s Social Revolution” ? Huh ? That is about the worst way to describe the systematic changes that Arbenz was attempting to implement.

- “Guevara Died at the hands of the Bolivian army” ... what kind of wording is that ? Were they cradling his head as he passed away from old age ? _I think you are confusing "died in the arms of" with "died at the hands of". The wording is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.51.122 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

- Inclusion of the fact that Che “pawned jewelry” when money was tight ? How is this relevant and significant ? Especially when other minute details are considered “overbearing”.

- “Guevara met Fidel” – sounds like they attended the same soccer game and bumped into each other. Raul (Castro’s brother and current Cuban President introduced Che to Fidel)

- 4 lines on Che’s role in the Play “Evita” ? There should be 0.

- The entire criticism section is for lack of a better word “crap” and certain non credible parts would have to be removed to another article. Also what is with the shout out to Chemart.com ? Are we going to also link the article to Che-lives.com as well and offer discounts on T-shirts? This particular criticism section does not belong in the new article whatsoever and if people desire it, it should be a sister article. Also citing Álvaro Vargas Llosa makes the article laughable. He is a self-identified partisan hack.

With that said ... I believe that the March 10th version could be morphed into a good article with the work of several people. I myself would want to take part in the process as I consider my knowledge on the issue considerable, and I have the desire to put in the effort and will cede final decisions on my contributions to Polaris ... whose judgment and objectivity I trust. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Red, if the revert is decided upon, will you agree to follow the steps above? That is, will you wait for steps 1 to 3 to be completed before beginning content revisions?  If not, the job will be very complicated; everyone will just get in each other's way if content changes begin before the article is fully restored.  And no, criticism can't be removed, as that violates POV forking at WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Will you agree to proceed in an orderly manner so the article can be restored before it is changed?  This could take, perhaps (not sure) a few days to at most a week. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Response I understand that a section on Criticism is ‘par for the course’, but not that particular laughable one. Filled with innuendo, hyperbole, unfounded accusation, and product placement.  Also the size should be kept to a reasonable length and should not be any longer than any of the other article sections.   Moreover, if the revision is decided upon, I would agree to wait the week or so for the article to be ready for edits.  Also I would insist that the images in the present article that meet Wikipedia standards remain included, along with the post prose book/film references etc – which I believe are much more complete than the March 10 version.  Also on matters where people believe I am inserting POV, I will cede to the judgment of Polaris. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that all of your demands will be met, as almost everyone else disagrees, but each item can be discussed in due course, recognizing consensus. The central question is if you are willing to proceed according to consensus and let the restore work happen before work begins on the items you mention so that we don't get crossed up before the article is restored.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to compromise, cede my wishes when showed actual wiki policy which contradicts it, trust the objectivity evaluation of Polaris, and yes will wait the week or so, for the article to be restored to a state that can be edited. Redthoreau (talk 65.13.71.158 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that, Red. Mattisse just left (today) FAR notifications at all relevant WikiProjects, so I suggest we wait a bit more for consensus to develop.  In the meantime, people might want to begin reviewing ahead on the steps, to see what they can work on in Step 2, once I complete Step 1.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Redthoreau -- Thank you very much for your vote of confidence which I truly appreciate, but I had already opted out of POV matters via the following message on the FAR page, i.e.:


 * "Hello, Mattisse. I am a bit of a "templater" and would be glad to work with others, or on my own, to update those as needed. It is mainly the POV issues in which I do not wish to participate. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * In any case, all decisions here need to be taken collectively and I have no doubt that working together in a calm, deliberate and respectful manner we will be able to achieve our common objective of creating an excellent article. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in ref formatting
I will list issues here so we can all be on the same page before we start. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Full dates in citations need to have a consistent format and consistent wikilinking (see WP:MOSDATE). I will default to the method Zleitzen used, which is linking in the format day month year (Latin American style).  Please note that accessdates as well as publication dates should be consistently linked, and the "raw" format (day month year) should also be consistent, since most of our readers aren't logged in, don't have accounts, don't have user preferences, and only see the raw version.
 * Zleitzen used, "accessed day month year", but I see some capital Accessed, Accessed on and Retrieved on have crept in. I will stick to one style, the one originally established by Zleitzen (accessed, no uppercase, no "on").
 * Journal and newspaper names and book titles are italicized; article names are not, websites are not. Newspaper and journal article titles are in quotes.  (See WP:ITALICS and WP:CITE/ES).
 * I will always default to listing author last name first for ease of alphabetical location in the source list. The format I'll use will be:
 * Last name, first name (year).  (Note punctuation).  On listings that have no identified author, the publication date moves to after the publisher.


 * Book sources that are used more than once will have full info listed in the References section (we need ISBNs on all of those, see the ISBN finder in the user box on my user page). It's not necessary to repeat all of the information on each book source in every footnote when the book data is already listed in References.  So, I will change (for example):
 * Anderson, Jon Lee. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 3 to
 * Anderson (1997), p. 3 If there is more than one book by the same author, title is also included.  This will make it far easier to update citations, you only have to have author and page no.

I'll add more to this list as it occurs to me. Keeping a consistent citation style from the beginning, per crit. 2c, will avoid having to fix them all at the end, which is extremely tedious work. Cleaning up the existing citations to a consistent style will take me quite a bit of time tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are numerous citations problems in the current (and featured) versions. Note MOS:CAPS, I will reduce those.  Note consistency in date linking mentioned above.  Note that all websources need an accessed date.
 * There is also some current inconsistency in order of items in citations. I will put author before title, and publisher after title.  (Some of the current entries have publishers listed first as if they were authors.)


 * I think you said that newspapers were not good sources. However, in the Fidel Castro article, BBC News was excellent as they have reporters assigned to bureaus in Cuba and other countries, unlike U.S. media.  What do you thing?   Mattisse  17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that up to you all because you have access to academic and scholarly sources that I don't have, but in general, I would certainly prefer scholarly sources over any media source. Specifically, the BBC's past reporting on Hugo Chavez was clearly biased (pro-Chavez), although they've gotten more neutral recently.  In general, I'd always prefer academic or scholarly sources, particularly on someone who has been dead for 50 years and about whom much has been written.   Relying on the popular press in this case (just because it's available online) isn't necessary.  That's my 2 cents, but you all can evaluate each source vis-a-vis the scholarly sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. But surprisingly little has been written about Che Guevara in scholarly and academic sources. The first reasonable biography was written in 1997. Most writings are very pro or very con, or written by Che himself. Anyone reading this, please correct me if I am wrong. Mattisse  17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I want to make sure we have a consistent ref formatting style in place, and let you all sort out the best sources to use. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted my list of refs with problems Talk:Che_Guevara/List_of_Refs_with_problems -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this after the fact but: you seem to have omitted the URLs wherever they were "broken" URLs. Actually, even "broken" URLs may be very useful in finding a substitute. It may be on an archive somewhere, either on that particular web site, a closely related web site, or one (like the Internet Archive) that uses old URLs as part of its indexing. - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Jmabel -- Thank you for pointing this out. I omitted the URL in the case of ref#2Rosario de Santa Fe Argentina because I had already checked it myself and tried to find it on "wayback" and couldn't (it exists there, but only in 2007 and I thought that since the version of CG that we are going to use was written in 2006 it would be inappropriate to use a 2007 version of a source which could be quite different) and I knew that a book was available as a source and I am going to provide that as a reference instead; for these reasons, I didn't think anybody would want the non-working URL, but I will add it now and check to make sure the others are there also. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you were saying that I should put in the URLs for all of them, even those that are still working? I will be glad to do that also. -- Polaris999 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are all in there now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to volunteer to take a "first pass" at the images. Meaning, I would restore/fix them as seems best to me, then others can discuss and make modifications as they consider necessary. (I am thinking in particular of the TIME cover which I will restore but which may or may not meet "Fair Use"; others will have to decide about this because I am not an expert.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is great, as you are familiar with the history of image problems in that article.  Mattisse  22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am working on them now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the work I have done on the images is at Talk:Che Guevara/Images for CG -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before spending any time on bringing in images, it would be good to run them by somehow well versed in Fair Use, Free Use and other image copyright issues on Wiki to make sure they pass muster for a featured article. I suggest either  or  or both; if they can't get to it, then also .  Perhaps them give a list of the images under consideration to see if they check out? There's no point in bringing in images if they have licensing problems.  Also, the current version of the article is a bit heavy on images, verging on Wiki is WP:NOT a photo gallery, so they may need to be pared down.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, used to be very good on this issue when he was active. How are you doing all this, since the revert has not occurred yet?    Mattisse  22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How is who doing all of what? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use is, by its nature, a great big gray zone, and it is hard to say what will pass muster because attitudes on Wikipedia have been evolving (towards allowing only the lightest shades of gray). Non-free use rationale gives a lot of clues what they look at:
 * It has to be clearly sourced (no trouble in the case of a magazine cover).
 * It has to be relevant to the article, and the nature of that relevance has to be spelled out.
 * It has to be basically irreplaceable: the image itself has to convey something that is unlikely to be conveyed by any "free use" image we could create (e.g. it's almost impossible to claim fair use for a map, unless there was commentary about the map, not about what the map represents).
 * If it is possible to get the point across with less than the whole image, that is good.
 * If possible, images should be at a low enough resolution that they would not have the economic value of the original
 * So, for example, Che on the cover of Time is not acceptable just as an image of Che, but it is likely to be acceptable in the context of discussion of how the media looked at Che, especially if the article illustrated by the cover is explicitly commented upon in the article, and even more so if the particular image is discussed in that context. Note, however, that it the photo were being discussed independently of Time's use of the photo, then including the Time cover as such (rather than an unadorned image) would actually be pretty dubious. The narrower the context, the less some other image could be substituted, the stronger the fair use argument.


 * Contrary to what some people have said, I believe we are so far from any "line" that there is near-zero risk of legal problems: Wikipedia itself is clearly non-commercial and educational, and fair use justification in a non-commercial, educational context is very lenient. We have, however, decided as a community (well, really, this was something I think Jimbo decided almost unilaterally, but others have elaborated the consequences) that we want to confine ourselves to materials that would clearly pass muster when reused commercially. So, in practice, we are being even more cautious than, say, the average newspaper.


 * Hope that helps. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but. I've given you the names of three editors who are active at FAC and FAR, and who will review the images eventually, so it makes sense to ask them in advance, rather than finding out they're not happy a month from now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but it's not enough to show them an image. One also needs to explain the rationale. I was trying to lay the groundwork to do that. The "fairness" of "fair use" only makes sense in the context of a particular usage. It's about the use, not about the image. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So glad you are back, Jmabel. I know it is just temporary, but it is so calming for me.  Mattisse  01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, yes, correct. Fair Use rationale depends on the text in the article accompanying the image, so giving a list of images to people won't do the trick.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowing out
Hey, folks, I'm sorry for the news at this stage of the game, but Mattisse is uncomfortable with my participation, so I feel it's best for the article if I bow out now. This sort of undertaking works best if everyone is on the same page to the extent possible. Please rest assured I haven't joked about anyone on my talk page, and I don't know where Mattisse got that impression, but that is best dropped. I didn't "demand" anything, rather I explained how I planned to proceed to gain consensus before we all invested a lot of work. If the "tone this is taking on" is upsetting to a regular editor here, I must bow out for the good of the article. Good luck, I wanted to help, but this is best, and I hope the article can pull through and retain status, in Zleitzen's honor. He was one of the first Wiki editors to befriend me, and I hope his work can be preserved. Unwatching now, regards,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you let the others down. As for me, you comments about my opinions are almost always critical anyway. The others would probably prefer you stay and I go, so I am willing to do that.  Mattisse  17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm cleanup revisited
I went ahead and did some very standard linkfarm cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:LIST. My previous discussions on this got nowhere, so I thought it might be best to be bold. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I commend you for doing that.  Mattisse  19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Further reading section
I started looking it over, and noticed there were entries added before their publication dates. Given that the section obviously hasn't been reviewed for such promotional material, and we've no inclusion criteria to keep the list manageable, I've moved it to Talk:Che_Guevara/Further_Reading for easy review and discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking back into the edit history, I see that Further reading contained only 6 entries 30 December 2007. I think that increasing it to 66 entries in two months is highly questionable. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy of Che Guevara" sub-article created
I just created the sub-article Legacy of Che Guevara and transferred the "Legacy" section from the main Che Guevara article into it. This removed 26,671 bytes from the Che Guevara article.

Number of references in CG main article before creation of "Legacy" sub-article = 174; number of references in CG main article after creation of "Legacy" sub-article = 118. --Polaris999 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the whole, I think that's a fine decision. But I'd like to see if we could restore about 150-200 well-balanced words as a summary on the present page. Usually that's what we do when we carve out something like this. Che is enough of an icon among supporters, friendly and hostile critics, detractors, and even many for whom he is merely an icon, that it seems to me to merit some mention in this main article on him. - Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The new article needs a WP:LEAD section, and this article needs a summary. They should be very similar, and one could be used as a start for the other. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jmabel, I totally agree that a small "Legacy" section is needed in the article. I have always steered clear of contributing to the "Legacy" section, and would not feel comfortable writing the summary you suggest, so I am hoping that some other editor(s) will step forward to undertake that challenge. -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do too. It just needs "mentions" of the general effect. So much of the legacy, t-shirts, mugs, has nothing to do with Che. The subarticle is freer to analysis the commercialization etc of Che and other angles. Also (personal opinion) as the Cuba situation resolves itself, perhaps much of the symbolization will lose relevance as it is still driven by the frenetic ideological war.  Mattisse   —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added what I think constitutes a balanced summary of this former section. Feel free to edit. I have not checked the references myself, they are drawn from the recently moved material. - Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are no longer going to revert?
If that is the case, then we need to focus on the article structure and therefore the lead. If we are clear about the lead, then the article will flow from it. Is it O.K. to start working on the article again? Mattisse 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just ran a text analyzer on the text of the current version of the CG article and it says that it contains 45,814 bytes. So, I think that we can proceed.  Will you work on the lead? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. but with feedback from you. Perhaps there does need to be a separate section/article on Che as author since (to me) publishing details do not need to be in main body of article (later collected & published by such and such publishing house after his death). (Just my opinion -- no big deal.) Also, if Sandy objected to BBC News, then surely she would object to Time Magazine as a source of the details of his death, etc.  Mattisse  21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that a summary section on him as author would be a good idea. Probably something similar to the "Legacy" section that we are hoping someone will create in the main CG article, and then another sub-article. Perhaps Redthoreau will want to work on the sub-article since CG's role as author, etc. seems to be of particular interest to him.


 * re sources for details of his death, I have The Fall of Che Guevara by Ryan and can find information for you there; also, you might want to take a look at Che Guevara in Bolivia by Selvage. -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a great source that I have used often. However, I do not know specifics about Guevara's writings. Quotes from that source:

I have a whole book on the theme that Castro succeeded precisely because his revolution moved to the cities (not because of Castro though but through Frank Pais and others).

But it is Cuba's revolution that succeeded.

This paper has a lot on Che's theories but gives only one publication in the bibliography. Nor does it discuss his writing style and other authorship qualities. Reading Che's theories, so different from the pragmatism of Castro, shows clearly (to me) why Castro could succeed and Che could not. He was rooted in past revolutionary styles. It almost makes him sound like a James Dean-like figure, or maybe he is Jim Morrison with an assault rifle. It says that Castro did not make attempts to indoctrinate his troops, while Che was all about indoctrination.

I don't know what to put in the lead, other than he wrote a lot about revolutionary theory. I know he influenced Castro on guerrilla tactics but that was in person in Mexico or through Raul. Any ideas? Or maybe you should write that paragraph. Mattisse 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to take care of it with a few words. Please tell me what you think ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on lead - opinions
I replace first para in lead to a more concise version from a previous version.

Later I found this one had been approved by talk page (December 3, 2006):

It is a little more wordy, unnecessarily so from my point of view, but still very much O.K. Do others have opinions? Mattisse 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the version above is more correct and I would suggest using it. Other than that, I like your more concise treatment of the subject matter and would prefer retaining it. (In any case, the segment about guerrillas needs to be changed because he did not lead only Cuban guerrillas ...) -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K.  Mattisse   —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, I like it very much now. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasons. I just have a dislike of deceptive links. When the reader hovers over them or clicks them they see the real name anyway, so unless there is a really good reason, I think that wikilink names should accurately reflect there content. Mattisse  00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After I added the mention about his writings, it became possible to move the wikilink, so I think all is well now (?) -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. What do you want to tackle next? The footnotes are in bad condition and we need to settle on a format and fix them. Also, should I go back and try to reincorporate section you wrote that got distorted? Mattisse  00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to make certain that most changes needed in the text have been made before we address the footnote issue because otherwise we may spend time working on footnotes that subsequently are not needed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure which section you are referring to in relation to possible reincorporating. -- Polaris999 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What footnote format are we using?
There seem to be a variety in the article. I wanted to put an ISBN but I couldn't tell where to put it in the format. Mattisse 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Back when I was adding source notes to this article, WP policy was that you should have a notes section and a bibliography section and ISBNs only appeared in the bibliography section. At some point, rather recently, an editor wiped out the bibliography section of this article in order to give more prominence to external links, videos, etc. I have no idea where ISBNs are supposed to be located if the bibliography section is going to be integrated into the notes section.  However, I would hazard a guess that they should go at the very end of the reference. I have looked at a few articles that recently received FA status and, so far, have found that all of them have both a notes section and a bibliography section. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, separate notes and "references" (not usually "bibliography") is still quite acceptable, and works well for articles that cite a lot of books. If we are doing that Harvnb in the notes and citation in the references works nicely: footnote has author, date, and page (plus anything else you want to append), and the author + date is a link to the appropriate entry in the references. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a version of the CG article where the "References" section was still included. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC); -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought the "References" from that version into the current article -- if it is not needed, please delete it. -- Polaris999 (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby cat
I have put Che down as an Argentine rugby player. This is not a troll, since he was actually a keen player and edited a fanzine in his time. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
There are three different places in the text where Guevara is described as being given a "nickname". Is there some reason for this propensity for being given nicknames? Are all of them important enough to warrant mention? I can see how "pig" and "Che" contribute to his characterization, but is the rugby nickname also important? Is its mention to establish that as a young man he was aggressive? Mattisse  —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the intention was to show his enthusiasm for the game (which was great) and, as you say, to mention that he played very aggressively. I will leave it to others to give opinions as to whether its inclusion is warranted. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala section
The Guatemala section has ballooned from the August, 2006 version. Some of the additions may be valuable and those should remain. However, from my point of view, the section is filled with so much detail that it is difficult to follow. I also wonder about mentioning events in that section that have not happened yet such as the Granma. To a general reader who may not know the history, will this make much sense to them? (I know this statement was in the March 10, 2006 version, but still I question it's inclusion here.)

What do the rest of you think? Mattisse 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The bit about the Granma expeditionary was added by a problematic editor who is no longer active.  I would suggest that you clean this section up and then some of us can read your text and recommend additions if we think that anything essential has been removed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should mention that the editor in question is no longer active on WP because he has been blocked — one of the reasons being his habit of inserting text and then adamantly refusing to let others modify it, as was the case with the sentences you are referencing. -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
I notice that the article has just picked up a huge quantity of "Quotes", including some that have errors. I believe that it is WP policy that only a few quotes, if any, should be included in the article itself and that the others belong in Wikiquote (where a CG "quotes page" already exists and many of these can be found.) Does this policy remain in effect? -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Quotations I think you are right.--  Ѕandahl  17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re the "Cuba" section
A statement has recently been added to this section which I do not believe is adequately sourced, i.e.:


 * (Guevara) taught on the medical faculty of the National University (UNAM)

The source note given links to a dead URL. I do not remember ever having heard before that he was a member of the medical faculty of UNAM. Can anybody help with this? -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I have not been able to find any source to substantiate the statement above and I will therefore remove it. Of course, if someone can find such a source, the statement can be restored. -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism warning
The "Capture and execution" sub-section contains the following sentence:


 * The autopsy cited eight bullet wounds, but none to the face that would soon be flashed across the globe.

Since this sentence is a verbatim copy of a sentence in the Los Angeles Times article, Che Guevara's legacy looms larger than ever in Latin America(to which it is sourced), I would suggest that it either be enclosed in quotes or, preferably, removed. -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just paraphrase it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Executing the innocent ?
Even though this sentence has a citation from Anderson on PBS I think it should go: "Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson has contended that through his five years of research that he was unable to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent."

My reason is that I don't know what "an innocent" means in war. Anderson says: "Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder." Are we to believe there were trials and such? Did not he execute people for the same reasons he was executed? We do have to reduce the POV of this article. I know there are references for the "Christ-like" pose and such, but is that not POV? Interjecting religion into an article about someone who was definately not religious and who is controversial. In fact, did not the lead at one time say he was controversial? The globalsecurity.org article says in the introduction that he was controversial.

Also, they  makes it clear that their view is that Che was a failure in trying to implement his theory.

This is their introduction:

Mattisse 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * re the "innocents" question: I can think of many reasons why JLA might not have been able to find "a single credible source" that have nothing at all to do with whether the individuals executed were in fact innocent or not. (Which is not to say that I think they were innocent because I have absolutely no clue as to whether some, or all, of them were innocent or were not innocent.) -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to remove the sentence because, even though Anderson said it, I don't think it applies to the situation and is needlessly pro-Guevara. I don't think we know one way or the other. And "innocents" in a revolutionary situation depends on what side you are on. Mattisse  23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be removed as far as I am concerned ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Vallegrande photograph
1. Previous

Photographs at that time gave rise to legends such as those of San Ernesto de La Higuera. Local people came to refer to Guevara as a saint, "San Ernesto de La Higuera", whom they ask for favors. Others claim his ghost walks the area.

2. Current

His body was lashed to the landing skids of a helicopter and flown to neighboring Vallegrande where a photograph was taken showing a Christ-like figure lying on a concrete slab in the laundry room of the Nuestra Señora de Malta hospital. [75][76]

3. My proposed version

His body was lashed to the landing skids of a helicopter and flown to neighboring Vallegrande where photographs were taken of a figure described by some as "Christ-like" lying on a concrete slab in the laundry room of the Nuestra Señora de Malta hospital. [75][76]

Just my opinion. What do others think? -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I wanted to clarify that I was busy writing this message and therefore hadn't viewed Mattisse's message in which she mentions the same issue (above). If I had seen her message before posting this one, I would have posted it as a reply to hers instead of starting a new section ...
 * -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bolivia
The section on Bolivia goes into all sorts of detail, but it never says Che failed, even though it goes on to say: "Guevara's plan for fomenting revolution in Bolivia appears to have been based upon a number of misconceptions:" and then lists misconceptions. It talks about training, about him helping wounded Brazilian soldiers, goes on about photographs etc. etc. but it never says what actually happened regarding the actual events of the planned revolution. It never explains that Guevara had a plan. In fact, it infers that Castro was behind it. "At Castro's behest...." This section does not make sense to me. It relates a list of semi-unrelated incidents regarding Che and then lists Che's misconceptions. Can this be clarified? Mattisse 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you volunteering to clarify it? That would be great! -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a trap! I am beginning to think that this article misses the boat. Gloralsecurity.org's  introduction says that Che's achievements were his theories on revolution and his failed attempts in Bolivia. This article does not explain what his theories are. It's great that he rode around on a motorcycle and today is equal to John Lennon or Jim Morrison with an assault rifle. But he probably is not as referred as Elvis so how much does that aspect count? We know what Elvis accomplished. In my opinion, this article does not justify Che's importance. We should be concentrating on his revolutionary theories much more and on his revolutionary activities, whether or not he took time out to treat wounded Brazilian soldiers, especially as his activities related to his theories.  I know that he had a dramatic effect on the Cuban revolution by introducing Castro to guerrilla warfare. In truth, I do not know what else of importance he did. The fact is that Castro endured for over half a century and Che pretty much shot himself in the foot. How is he a martyr realistically and equated with Christ? I am asking this because I really do not know.  Mattisse  22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you see my comment above re the "Christ-like" ? Anyway, I believe that most of those who use this adjectival phrase are referring to the appearance of his body in the laundry room. A few have put forward the idea that he was a "modern-day Christ" and some of them have explained that they believe this because it is their opinion that, like Christ, he gave his life for the sake of others. My personal thinking about all of this is that it only serves to obfuscate the issue. I believe that the WP article should emphasize facts, not perceptions, opinions, fantasies, etc.  -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My brother used to say that Guevara was a Trotskite. Do you know what he meant by that? Is that true? Mattisse  23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, a very interesting question. Do you think it is necessary to explore that in the article? -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Just curious. However, it might help explain what he did think. How was he different from other Marxists? What was so classic about his manual on guerrilla tactics?  Mattisse  23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that, to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any WP:RS/WP:V sources that could be cited to prove that he was or was not a follower of Trotsky — but that, nevertheless, the possibility that he was one should not be discarded. -- Polaris999 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done for now
I now realize what everyone was saying about the hopeless of the POV problems and how it will drain anyone who tries in this situation. The whole article still does not mention even once that Che was controversial. I see Time magazine is back in the lead. I am offically giving up as I will not engage in a POV revert war. That Time magazine thinks anything should not be in the lead in a Wikipedia article about anything important. Sorry, this article will never be up to standards I can tolerate. I am bowing out. Other editors were right, I concede, when they said the job was impossible. Regards, Mattisse  08:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Mattisse, for all of your hard work on CG. Despite the fact that, as you point out, the article continues to have problems that are perhaps insurmountable, it seems — to me, at least — that it has been significantly improved as a result of your efforts. I hope that at some point you may decide to return ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think any work on the article now is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic before it hits the ice berg. The article is hopeless. It needs major surgery which I can see it is not going to get. Rearranging an few words here and there will not take care of the fact that it is more a Time Magazine article on a rock star than on a major political force of the twentieth century. Even the part on Bolivia sounds like Castro was enabling it. There is nothing in the article that describes anything of importance that Che did independent of Castro, except write a Guerrilla Warfare manual, the contents of which is never described. Even his role in Bolivia is muffled. Perhaps, if I get the energy, I will start a new article that concentrates on his thinking, his contributions to guerrilla warfare and the politics of the time rather than his three nicknames and other trivia which (quite naturally) trivializes him.  Yesterday was fruitless and accomplished nothing of importance. The only good is that it show the FAR people we are still trying. This article will lose its star, which you pointed out is not important, and then it can go on forever in one crippled state or another with no one keeping an eye on it.   Mattisse  19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I may perk up and do major surgery, which of course you can revert. One last stab. I am sure you will disagree with what I want to do. But frankly, to me, the article is not readable as is. I have been through it many times, and each time it makes less sense.  Mattisse  19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove content notes or whittle down article further?
Which would you prefer? My browser still can barely handle it. Also, I am willing to spin Guevara's works into a list just to get rid of it. We could take care of the details of it later. Mattisse 02:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest stripping out the excess images so that it no longer has the appearance that SandyGeorgia described in FAR as a "picture book" — that should do more to speed up loading than anything else. Spinning Guevara's works into a list could be done, too. Why not do both and see what the result is? -- Polaris999 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * O.K. You do the images, as you know their history and appropriateness. I will do the list. Remember, the list name, etc. can always be changed. Mattisse  04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Common consensus on FAR that article began to deteriorate drastically after January 1
Redthoreau, please keep in mind that it was during the period after January 1 (actually beginning in December 2007) that the massive ballooning of the article began and the unacceptable POV edits increased significantly. The comments made on Featured article review/Che Guevara are uniform in this agreement, however much those editors disagree in other respects. If you want to make changes in the article, please join the working relationship on the talk page first, before entering your own personal point of view. This article is supposed to be NPOV. Please keep this in mind. Regards,  Mattisse  17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section added from August 6, 2006 version
This section was added because both SandyGeorgia and Polaris999 voiced approval of this version as the best version. SandyGeorgia later changed her mind and opted for an earlier version. Polaris999, who has been currently working on the article and interacting on the talk page, continued to express preference for this version.

If there is disagreement, let us discuss it here, rather than using a series of reverts without any discussion or consensus on the talk page. Anyone editing the article is requested to discuss the editing goals and processes on this page first. If an edit is made that others disagree with, then it can be removed.

And please, no POV edits. Any editing is to have the goal of making the article more neutral, as the "hagiographic tone" of the article is it's prime problem, now that the size has been reduced somewhat. Polaris999 has stated in the past that he was against the Legacy section. We all must decide how to handle this. Mattisse 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the shortened "Legacy" section, written a few days ago by Jmabel in summary style, is ideal. It includes a link to the sub-article "Legacy of Che Guevara". -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflct x 2}


 * O.K. Feel free to revert it. Redthoreau also added other wording changes throughout the article. You can evaluate those also and decide to keep.   Mattisse  19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that, if a "Criticism" section is going to be included in the main CG article, there also needs to be a "Praise" section to counter-balance it. I strongly oppose inclusion of both such sections and believe that these POV's are adequately covered in the existing "Legacy of Che Guevara" sub-article.


 * I think that it is important to bear in mind that on 06 August 2006, the "Legacy of Che Guevara" sub-article did not exist. (It was created only last week.) If it had existed, I feel quite certain that the "Criticism" section would have been transferred to it, rather than included in the main article.  -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree ... if the criticism section is not removed I will be creating a praise section to counter balance it, and then we will venture down the same road that created these problems in the first place. Also the current one is too long, inaccurate, advertises products, contains 3rd person hearsay, and mentions the Movie Motorcycle Diaries more than the man in question. It is a horrible embarrassment for justifiable criticism. It's inclusion on this article and not in legacy, I would constitute as vandalism. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is this attitude of yours: if the criticism is not removed I will be creating.... that is not collaborative and not working toward a consensus. This is against everything that Wikipedia stands for.  Polaris999 and you are better able to work together, as you do not treat his work with such disrespect and lack of willingness to work toward agreement.  As I said, I am dropping out because of this dictatorial position of yours. You and Polaris999 appear to be in agreement. Good luck.  Regards,   Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dictatorial? You have to be kidding me. So basically the only two options at my disposal are to agree with you 100 % of the time ... or be branded a “dictator.” You have edited dozens and dozens of my things that I let go and agreed with and many that I disagreed with but let stand. However for some reason it strikes me that you don't handle any disagreement very well - for you it is your way - or no way. I did not say that you couldn't include the criticism section ... I was stating that if it stayed then I would be making a "Praise" section. I also found that section of the article to be below wiki standards, and not relevant to the subject in question. The same sort of judgment call you made as you edited the article 50 + times over the last week or so. It is already clear that Sandy left apparently citing you as her reason ... and now you have stated you are leaving ... so unfortunately the common denominator that doesn't seem to be working is you, not me. I don’t believe that I am the one that doesn’t understand collaboration.Redthoreau (talkTR 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that User: Redthoreau and I were only in agreement on that one particular point, i.e. re the "Criticism" section being unnecessary since the "Legacy of Che Guevara" article now exists. I had not even seen that User: Redthoreau was editing the "Criticism" section or read his threat when I posted my replies to you above. Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that User: Redthoreau is any more respectful of my work than he is of anyone else's — please note in the "History" of the CG article his recent revert of my editing of the caption of the Sartre photo to remove a reference that does not meet WP:RS/WP:V standards and the comment he left for me there — and I am glad about that because I have done nothing to "deserve" deferential treatment from him. Personally, I regret the fact that you decided to leave the CG article very much. -- Polaris999 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn’t aware Polaris that you were the one that edited the caption out. If you believed that it did not belong all you had to do was let me know and I would have agreed with your judgment. I have stated repeatedly that I will cede to your decisions in regards to the article and believe that I have always respected your decisions. Can you think of an instance when I have not? I find your opinion neutral and knowledgeable and thus I am ok with allowing you the final say in order to insulate from the accusations of Che-detractors, that I am inserting “bias” into the article. Redthoreau (talk


 * If you read the above comment by Redhoreau, you see the conditions I am working under if I continue. I am taking this article off my watchlist as I am not willing to work under in this situation unprotected.   Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough ... the "woe is me" storyline I would contend is factually incorrect and unwarranted. I hope this is not another instance of “crying wolf”, as I think you have officially quit working on this article several times now. Nevertheless, your work and contributions are appreciated and best of luck to you. :o) Hopefully you can find other articles where you can 'collaborate' - i.e. make all the decisions, free of disagreement. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will step out now and no longer edit the article
I will stop for good. I do not see the article going in a direction with which I can agree so this is a good time for me to bow out.

The list has been spun off. If you want to do more to it, do so. The two of you can carry on. The list is List of Che Guevara's works (English translations) and from my view it is part of the article and needs to be maintained by article editors. If this is not agreeable, the list can be returned to the article. Regards, Mattisse  19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Be weary of Agcala's vandalism
The user Agcala attempted to dramatically vandalize the article yesterday, thus editors should be on the lookout for his future mischief. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Work on photos
I have restored the post mortem photo of Che because of its significance and believe it to be more momentous than the externally hosted pre-death photo. Also I have restored the picture of Che on a mule as a Guerrilla over the less significant photo of him on a burro as a child. I also restored the walking in Moscow picture in place of the "meeting party" photo, which was set for deletion and I would argue of much poorer quality and relevance, than the Moscow photo in reference to his trips around the world. Since it was agreed that we would limit the number of photos, I find it crucial that we use the most relevant, noteworthy, and best quality ones available. Moreover, I have ensured that all of my hosted photos possess the proper Cuba tag and citation. Your thoughts are welcome. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the school house photo was of such poor quality that I believe it presented very little visual value if any = Basically a brown bloch. Thus I will search for a better quality photo on the day of his execution. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

References ?
I don't see much value in having a reference section that just provides full book titles without page numbers. Right now there are the references in the article which cite a specific pg or web article, and the blanket references with just book names. I would contend that the reference section without specific page numbers is unnecessary and of little value. Others thoughts? Redthoreau (talk TR 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling the reference section is there because someone (or some people) who wrote large chunks of the article used those as references...wouldn't that necessitate a reference section? Listing references used is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia (or any academic writing for that matter). Budding Journalist 05:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of the reasoning behind a reference section ... but anyone who has written for academic sources will usually tell you that page numbers and specific footnotes are required as references. It does very little good to tell someone that a particular paragraph or statement was derived from “somewhere” in an entire 500 page book. Preciseness is key in research, and blanket sources are of very little relevance or assistance. For instance if I want to question the validity of a particular declaration, I should be able to go right to the particular page in question, from where the source is derived, not have to peruse through an entire book to discern where it is located. I am in favor of source notes … not blanket non-specific references … and that was the genesis of my original complaint and question. Redthoreau (talkTR 17:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but how does this support your argument for removing the References section? Certainly, a list of references, even without specific page notes, is better than nothing at all, no? You're arguing for more specific inline citations it seems, which is not mutually exclusive. Indeed, many fine FAs have both a generic References section and a Notes section. Think of the References section as a bibliography. In my opinion, the References section should be kept as is (although some of it needs some better formatting), and then the inline citations should just abbreviate the sources that are listed in the References section. I see no need to constantly state, for example, "Anderson, Jon Lee (1997), Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, New York: Grove Press..." in the inline citations. The References section serves its purpose by providing the full information, and then the inline citations can just say "Anderson, p. xxx" (as it sometimes already does). Budding Journalist 04:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article to here
I moved this from the article because it was out of sequence. Also, it seems trivial to have a whole paragraph about his personal life in the middle of the Cuban events. It makes his personal live seem more important than his political. Anyway, I put the paragraph here for someone to find a place for it.

Hilda Gadea had arrived from Guatemala and she and Guevara resumed their relationship. In the summer of 1955, she informed him that she was pregnant, and he immediately suggested that they marry. The wedding took place on August 18, 1955, and their daughter, whom they named Hilda Beatríz, was born on February 15, 1956.

Mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article has little about what Guevara actually did
Very few examples. Just a lot of glowing prose. Specifically, what did he do besides ride around on a motorcycle, have affairs with women, fail at all his attempts at revolution? Surely there must be something more concrete. This whole article just rides on his icon status. Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were finished with this article per your own statement ? You "took your proverbial ball and went home" last week, after supposedly leaving the article for good a week or so before that ... etc. How serious should your suggestions or concerns be taken, when every so often you storm off and declare you’re "finished" with the article? Redthoreau (talk TR 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the specific complaint you raise ... your wording I would contend calls into question your objectivity on the issue. There are a plethora of specifics of his actions, speeches, influence, etc. Also more specifics could be added, but every time I added in depth details, you or someone else deleted it, under the basis of it being too insignificant. You can’t ‘have your cake and eat it too’. Do you want a long article with specifics (which it previously was before you began the push for trimming it) or would you like a quick summary of his actions and influence? In addition, the article dealing specifically with his involvement in the Cuban revolution could be merged with this one to allow more specifics, but then it would also increase length, and a few weeks back you expressed a “sky is falling” mentality with relation to the articles large size. I can expand any specifics you would like, if you let me know what aspect of his life you would like to see more of. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the article about his political actions, about why his revolutions failed, about what his revolutionary policies were, about why he really was not liked in Cuba. There is a lot about his personal life, but nothing about his complex relationship with Castro and why Castro succeeded in spades and Guevara is "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle". It's great to have icons, like Marilyn Monroe, but is that greatness? In fact, I would maintain that Monroe is a greater icon, because she appeals to a wider group of people then the Jim Morrison with an assault rifle type.  Mattisse  (Talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you so obsessed with the moniker David Horowitz gave him "Jim Morrison with an assault rifle"? If that is all you view Che Guevara as being, then maybe you will never be content with the article. There is a breakdown included of why his Bolivian attempt failed also tons of stuff on his political actions. Also he is revered in Cuba, it is the Cuban-American community that reviles him, but that is an issue for the article on his legacy - and mostly reverts back to his role as Supreme Prosecutor at La Cabana. Also your tangent on Marilyn Monroe is ridiculous and not deserving of a response. Would you like a specific description of each of the battles he was involved in ? Redthoreau (talk TR 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Please review the comment below from the FAR page on Che Guevara, as that editor is better at expressing what I want to say. Mattisse (Talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, "fail at all his attempts at revolution?" Sorry to interrupt, but have you ever heard of the Cuban Revolution? --Agüeybaná 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, remember we are talking about the article here, not personal opinions. Why don't you add to the article (with good reference sources) to make your point? General sentences, unreferenced are not helpful. It is not spelled out what he did in the Cuban Revolution in the article. Read the comments of the editor below this one.


 * I have copied this from the FAR page. I agree with these complaints about article content. Perhaps you are not aware that this article is about to be demoted from its Featured Article status because of the mess it has become. Since you know the details missing from the article, why do you not add them and fix the article up with good references.

This is what I have gathered from the Jon Anderson book so far. Che originally educated Raul and Castro about guerrillas tactics. Che did fight ruthlessly in the Cuban Revolution, all though he missed much of the crucial action. He was the one on charge of executing people, until Castro made him stop because of the world-wide bad press.

Che inspire the revolution by his speeches and writing and to fight ruthlessly, executing a lot of people. He certainly was not responsible for it's success, even if he did play and important role early on. Che was pushing the peasant revolution while Castro and others realized that the urban guerrilla revolution was the way to go. Che was rigid ideologically, while Castro was pragmatic and this was an increasing source of friction betwwen them.

The Jon Anderson book says finally Che was given grand titles to get him out of the main stream - as the higher the title sounded,  the less important the person was in the revolutionary structure. Che was stirring up unnecessary fuss with the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Castro also ordered him eventually to stop his summary executions as they were garnering bad press around the world. Anderson   describes  Che's increasing ideological rigidity and Castros's "realpolitik" meant that Castro  needed eventually to ease Che out of the revolutionary structure  and away from Cuba. The book also says that Castro sent Che traveling around the world, visiting world leaders, at least in part, to get him out of the way and eventually to get him out of Cuba. Che's subsequent attempts at revolution (Bolivia, the Congo) failed because his revolutionary ideas were flawed: Foco theory, Foco. None of the contrasting politic views and strategies between Castro and Ghe are described in the article. Nor is the complexity of their relationship described.

I would very much appreciate any references pointing to Che's revolutionary successes. The Cuban Revolution was not brought about by Che. In fact, he appears (according to Jon Anderson, Julia El Swieig, Anthony DePalma) to misunderstand the complexity of the Cuban situation by ignoring the importance of guerilla tactics in favor of a peasant revold.

Any additions or improvements you can add to the article would be welcome. However, personal opinions cannot be put in the article and do not supply reliable sources. Mattisse (Talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment pasted from FAR - this is a major problem in the article

 * Drive-by comment about the Cuba section The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain! Budding Journalist 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have copied this from the FAR page. I agree with these complaints about article content.   Mattisse  (Talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lumumba Contradiction?
Matisse I fail to see the contradiction at present. Yes Lumumba was killed in 1961, but Laurent-Désiré Kabila was leading forces still loyal to his memory. Thus when Guevara arrives in the Congo in 1965, there are still Lumumba supporters present who are aligned with Kabila.Redthoreau (talk TR 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary placement of article paragraph
As early as 1959, Guevara had helped organize revolutionary expeditions overseas, all of which were unsuccessful. The first attempt was made in Panama; another in the Dominican Republic (led by Henry Fuerte, also known as "El Argelino", and Enrique Jiménez Moya) took place on 14 June of that same year. Some sources state that Guevara persuaded Castro to back him in personally leading Cuba's first military action in Sub-Saharan Africa, while other sources maintain that Castro convinced Guevara to undertake the mission, arguing that conditions in the various Latin American countries that had been under consideration for the possible establishment of guerrilla focos theory were not yet optimal. Castro himself has said the latter is true. Guevara previously in August of 1964 laid out why he believed the Congo was a major battleground against imperialism, stating that the North American monopolies were installing themselves in a battle to "own the Congo", in order to control the copper, radioactive minerals, and strategic raw materials.

This needs to go in a section devoted to Chevara's revolutionary theory.

Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links?
I have temporarily restored the external links of images/archival footage until other editors can weigh in on their inclusion/exclusion. I myself believe they should be included in the main article, but am open to suggestions and reasoning. Redthoreau (talk TR 05:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Our tasks now
Name changes can be made easily at any time.Likewise, the External links issue can be addressed latter. If the FA people stop feeling the article is hopeless, they will start making specific suggesting. Remember the task as set before us now. (Read Featured article criteria). User:Marskell is an extremely well respected editor. This is what he suggests and therefore what we must do:

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (1d) (POV) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.


 * (1c) (referencing) Consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)


 * (2) (formatting) It follows the style guidelines, including:


 * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;


 * (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);


 * (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)


 * (4) (focus)  It follows the style guidelines, including:
 * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
 * (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
 * (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

I notice some POV has crept in overnight. Please go in the direction of removing POV. Also, do nothing that will make the article longer. Remove rather than add. Also, much of the article does not make sense. I am tempted to retrieve an earlier version for some sections. Mattisse (Talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Substantial rewording of lead for more clarity and specificity
Last night and this morning I spent a great deal of time rewording the lead as has been suggested to me before from Polaris. I painstakingly went through word by word and believe the finished product is a better place to continue editing from what was there before. I respect your opinion Matisse on the new version and am open to suggestions/criticisms. Redthoreau (talk TR 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia article somewhere that covers the excuse that because other editor can edit badly, therefore I can too. There is no excuse that I can do it "just because others do it."  Mattisse  (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting
Redthoreau, if you change the lead one more time within a 24 hour period, you will be guilty of a 3RR rule. Do not revert my edits without discussion. You have overlinked the lead and added POV. This is exactly what the article does not need. Please work toward following the guidelines.

Further, the lead is the least important right now as it MUST reflect proportionally the sections of the article. Since the article is a mess currently, it is difficult to write a proper lead.

Please do not add further POV to the article, as the POV is the article's main problem.

Also, I notice that you have not worked on the much more important issue of the Congo section despite my edit summaries & tags. I take this to mean that you do not know how to fix it. Therefore, I will try to work on it.

Please work on the more import issues in the article than focusing on the lead. Mattisse (Talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Matisse, it is my desire to work collaboratively and not combatively ... however a few things have me concerned and confused. When you alter my former writing it is assumed to be legitimate and beyond repute, but when I alter something you write, you aggressively view it as reverting you and an insult to you personally. Please ... I am trying to work in unison with you, but you make dozens of changes, and when I make one in conflict with yours you become upset and view me as breaking revert rules. What in my new lead is POV? I went through it very carefully and don't believe it to be represented of such. Can you discuss with me and point out what you believe is in violation and I will happily change it. Also "Over linking" ? There is now 2 links instead of 1, you consider that overlinking ? Where does it say that is such ? I don't believe a revert is necessary, as I believe the new lead to be heads above the old in quality of writing (and I have written for professional publications.) Redthoreau (talk TR 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I have looked at dozens of articles on similar figures to Che Guevara, and the current lead is very similar, and in fact has far fewer links and less POV issues. Where did the idea that 1 content note is ok in the lead and 2 is not come from ? Also none of the views in the lead are my own point of view ... and thus inclusion of the Maryland institutes view on his images is the same as Time Magazine's view of him the person. Both I believe to be legitimate representations of his influence and importance. Redthoreau (talkTR 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer you questions above, I again ask you to please read the section above on this talk page entitled Our tasks now. This is copied directly from the Wikipedia policy page. Also again I suggest that you read User:Marskell's comments on Featured article review/Che Guevara.  Mattisse  (Talk) 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Matisse, it is not my desire to have questions answered from him ... I am asking you specifically to validate your criticism. You claim that I have entered POV into the lead ... please point out where ? Without you doing so, it is impossible for me to understand where you believe POV to be present. Also how are 2 links in the lead egregious and 1 is not? Help me understand the basis for you casting this specific criticism. I believe that I am being very polite and collaborative on this and would just like you to be specific. I am flexible and willing to amend, but need you to be precise in your suggestions. As to his criticisms I am willing to work on those as well, but believed that you were and did not want to interfere and stop on your toes, as it usually results in the quarrel we are having now, which I do not want. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I do not have the time to hold your hand and point out every little thing. The changes you made to the lead were wrong. Study those. Read the relevant policies as I and others have recommended to you many times before.  Mattisse  (Talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matisse, come on I thought you were better that that and did not want to resort to insults. I am not asking you to "hold my hand". You said I injected POV, I asked where ? Now you claim you are too busy to tell me when asked for specifics. You are making it near impossible to work collaboratively together, as you speak in generalities, and become combative at any inclination of someone who may disagree with your assessment. It would take you 1 minute to describe why you think I have injected POV into the lead, and quite frankly if you can not, than I am left with no other choice than to assume you were speaking in hyperbole and that there isn't any present. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I read every policy pointed out to me, and find nothing that contradicts my alterations to the lead. If you believe there are some, then the burden of proof is for you to provide that information, is it not? Is it enough to just say "read wiki policy" in relation to every criticism ... and never be specific. Couldn't I counter back with the same "No you read Wiki policy" and we would get nowhere. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped editing the article for good
It is all yours. You are a grownup. You can figure these things out for yourself instead of demanding that others list mistakes and there rationale. Mattisse (Talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your unfortunate decision and wish that you would have desired to be more collaborative. I am not sure whether to view this as a complete withdrawal - as you made the same declaration a few weeks ago - but if it is, then I wish you all the best and wish we could have worked in unison. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious tag?
Matisse, I take it you are back editing again after a self imposed exile of 1 hour ? I only ask because it is confusing to watch you declare you are leaving only to have you resurface an hour later and ask for an explanation on content ... however I am happy to comply and deal with your concern specifically "as a grownup". I see that you have labeled him being internationally respected as a "dubious" statement. Would you like to explain your rationale for finding this statement "dubious". I find it to be common knowledge and if you desire I can ring off a plethora of articles, tributes, international monuments, books, etc that would make this statement accurate in scope. It is also just as accurate as declaring him “controversial” which you did. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed "Internationally" and hopefully this will take care of your concern of dubiousness. If it does not, please let me know. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a patently ridiculous statement. During his life he was not like the Pope or the President of the United States or any number of other people. He was no where near as famous and revered as Castro. Outside of the political, literary,  intellectual left, (and people like my brother)  he was  not what would be called famous. When he died, it was not like the death of John Lennon.  Even people who had heard of him knew little about him. Go up to some 21-year-olds today (say a sample of 20) and see how many can tell you much about Che's beliefs and achievements.   Mattisse  (Talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the President of the U.S. at certain times can be one of the most hated people on the planet? Considering Bush's approval rating borders around 25 % in the U.S. ... what would you imagine it is throughout the Middle East, Europe, or Africa? Also are you referring to the statement still being "ridiculous" or previously being ridiculous? At present (which is how the statement now readsGuevara (whether deserved or not) is a respected figure throughout much of the world (even though yes many of them probably have very little understanding of his complexities, violent tendencies, and short falls.) Also when Guevara died there were protests throughout the entire world as reported on in Time Magazine (hardly a bastion of communist thought). Speaking of Time he was on the cover in 1960 and named to the TIME 100 (meaning that in their editorial opinion, he was one of the 100 most influential “heroes and icons” of the 20th century.) Could Fidel have bought off Time Magazine with useless peso’s and hand-rolled Cohibas? Possibly, but I doubt it. He is very well known worldwide, and you do not become the most famous photograph in the world, by no one knowing who you are (although yes some youth I am sure wear his image without knowledge of who he is.) Redthoreau (talk TR 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE REMEMBER NPOV - it does no good to rant.  Mattisse  (Talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead vs body of article
According to the article TOC the lead should contain


 * 1) A smallish section on Guatemala
 * 2) A huge section containing Cuba, After the revolution and Disappearance from Cuba'
 * 3) A smallish section on Congo
 * 4) A smaller section on Bolivia
 * 5) A larger section on Capture and execution'
 * 6) A very small section on Legacy

How do you want to proceed? Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These sizes are constantly changing as we continue editing however. Thus why not wait till the rest of the article is complete and satisfactory for everyone, before we worry about proportional size of the lead? I think as of now that the lead is beyond satisfactory for the time being, until the rest of the article is edited. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have proposed that many times. You do not seem to hear me. Leave the lead alone and work on the other problems. You are fiddling while Rome burns.  Mattisse  (Talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:FAR
(copied from my talk page in reply to some of User:Redthoreau's postings there)

Name changes can be made easily at any time.Likewise, the External links issue can be addressed latter. If the FA people stop feeling the article is hopeless, they will start making specific suggesting. Remember the task as set before us now. (Read Featured article criteria). User:Marskell is an extremely well respected editor. This is what he suggests and therefore what we must do:

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (1d) (POV) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.


 * (1c) (referencing) Consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)


 * (2) (formatting) It follows the style guidelines, including:


 * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;


 * (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);


 * (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)


 * (4) (focus)  It follows the style guidelines, including:
 * (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
 * (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
 * (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

I notice some POV has crept in overnight. Please go in the direction of removing POV. Also, do nothing that will make the article longer. Remove rather than add. Also, much of the article does not make sense. I am tempted to retrieve an earlier version for some sections. Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not want an edit-war with you. Why won't you bring up your concerns in the lead to me so I can address your concerns and fix them, or give me a chance to explain my rationale for their inclusion. Actually you editing the lead would be the 3rd revert by you as well ... as it would be if I edited it, so that is an irrelevant point. Hell we have each edited wiring by each other countless times and that is not my concern. I want to be collaborative with you on this, but you are making things difficult with an overly aggressive tone and threats which are unnecessary. Wikipedia belongs to all of us, let's figure out a way to ensure everyone is able to use it how it was intended. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have brought them up repeatedly.

'''The lead must mirror the article closely. Nothing can be mentioned in the lead that is not gone into detail in the article. The proportion of words about a subject in the lead must reflect the proportion given than subject in the article. OVERLINKING IS DISCOURAGED.'''

You have been told many times to read:
 * WP:LEAD
 * WP:Summary style

Plus, please read what I wrote in my reply to you in the above section on this talk page.

Additionallly:
 * 1) The whole article must be neutral - meaning avoiding words like "martyr" "Christ-like", "revered worldwide", etc. NEUTRAL.
 * 2) The lead must be a summary of the article. The paragraphs in the lead mirroring the article material only, nothing else.
 * 3) Over linking is discouraged. Greatly discourage.
 * 4) The article needs to be decreased not added to
 * 5) The article needs to explain what Che actually did, what his role in the Cuban revolution actually was
 * 6) The footnotes are a mess and incorrectly formatted.
 * 7) Much of the articles is not referenced.

I copied the reviewer's comments in the Reply above. Please read them. I am copying this to the article talk page. Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am taking this article off my watchlist - I am done
Please do not contact me on my talk page. I am done with this article and your tactics. Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok well for the 4th time in the past few weeks and suprisingly the 2ND time today ! I bid you farewell and thank you for your contributions on the article. Best of luck to you. Goodbye for good ... (till your next return) [over/under in Vegas is Friday by 4pm] ;o) jk - although you have to admit though that from the outside the "IM LEAVING FOR GOOD" repeatedly - does start to resemble the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". Nevertheless, thanks for your efforts. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This kind of conflict is only going to precipitate this article's de-featuring, wich is precisely the reason that I supported reverting to a past edition created by someone with a different POV than the current contributors. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  03:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Matisse
Our resident "disgruntled" editor who storms off the article for good twice a day, has now taken it upon himself to go back and try and remove his additions to the article, which affects those who have edited his contributions and tied them into the overall article in reference to their own additions. It is not surprising, when looking at his past behavior, but it will surely take time to repair all of the damage he is reeking upon the article in his current temper tantrum. Any help by responsible editors will be appreciated once he is finished. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to reason with him, to no avail. He is bent on causing havoc and it appears there is nothing I can do to prevent his mayhem from continuing. I have pleaded with him for maturity, but it has fallen on deaf ears.Redthoreau (talkTR 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)