Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 16

Article closed for 5 days
I feel this was a good decision as the ongoing vandalism by Mattisse was becoming hard to control. Hopefully in the next few days those editors who are interested in working collaboratively on the article, free of harassing other members, will make their suggestions known. I am looking forward to others input ... especially Polaris if he is still out there somewhere. Redthoreau (talk TR 05:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this protection can only affect the article's Featured status as it directly conficts with the "stability" criteria. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That is wonderful news that the article has been locked down. It is hopeless for FA anyway, as the FAR editors made clear when editors would not cooperate in removing the massive POV. Let's hope it stays that way for a while. Remember, last summer it was locked down for a month after Jimmy Wales, who was concerned about the POV put the POV tag on the article. We never reached consensus to remove the POV tag and I do not know how it got removed. Since User:Redthoreau became editing the article in December 2006, he has mad more edits than all the other ediots put together since 2004, including those that brought it to FA status. I suggest that if [User:Redthoreau intends to continue his massive editing, that he start interacting with editors on Featured article review/Che Guevara. He has ignored the FAR suggestions, considering them ridiculous. I have copied the direction several places so he could see the. I also encourage him to discuss changes on the article talk page and be responsive to editors on the article talk page. I have asked him to discotinue postings of article or political content on my talk page as well as Personal Attacks. Do no discuss article business on my talk page. It is inappropriate. Follow the rules and suggestions on Featured article review/Che Guevara and outlined multipe times there and on the article talk page if User:Redthoreau wishs editing to continue again on the article. Remember, you even reverted User:SandyGeorgia during FAR. User:Redthoreau haa ignored our group planning and did not join in. The edits User:Redthoreau was making were against group consensus. User:Redthoreau reverted me yesterday without warning or discussing, replacing the whole intro that I had been working on not only without discussing but without any warning. This started today's ugly atmosphere which occurs everytime another editor trys to work on the article. User:Polaris999 will not work on the article because of the editing attitude of [User:Redthorea]]. Also, please stio the political attacks and rants on the article talk pages. Comment on content, not on editors. I believe we should discuss all of this on the article talk page, incluing the vaious plans that were abandoned because of User:Redthoreau's participation. Many editors, like User:Polaris999 may have been driven off for could. Regards,  Mattisse  (Talk) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this dispute has yet to be resolved after five days, drop me a line on my talk, and I'll reprotect. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mattisse  (Talk) 06:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I trust the ability of other editors to observe the situation and realize the numerous lies and falsehoods, User:Mattisse constantly puts forth. His irrational behavior is truly astonishing, and I don't know if I have ever witnessed anything like it. The problems arise because he believes he is above repute and that he is a falsely an de-facto moderator of wikipedia who can place false warnings on others talk pages, and then when they copy and paste the same warning back to him, he seeks official loop holes to have them banned. Mattisse also believes that he can justifiably make numerous edits without discussion on the talk page, but then when anyone edits something he may have recently edited, he freaks out and enters into what can only be described as a "peculiar editor’s rage”, furiously leaving talk page warnings, messaging moderators, seeking 3RR violations etc. It leaves the editor in a curious position as the visage he puts forth makes it very clear that you can edit an article, as long as you never put anything down that he disagrees with or follow the same pattern of behavior he exhibits. That is not how Wikipedia should work ........ Anyone can look through the edits and see that I make numerous mentions of trying to honor his suggestions (the few times he gave them and didn’t refuse to be specific) and that I constantly made pleas for collaboration and not the dictatorial irrationality he was displaying. Just from looking through this page alone, anyone can see the "curious" and confusing atmosphere that User:Mattisse presents as one second he will template that he is "LEAVING FOR GOOD" and for me not to contact him further, and an hour later he will return with more edits and warnings on my talk page in relation to the article. How can someone be expected to work collaboratively with someone who exhibits such a "bipolar" personality, and who never follows what he says? Mattisse has also started to show a penchant for following me around Wikipedia and placing tags on articles I make contributions on to annoy me. Not for an actual constructive purpose, but simply to cause frustration. --A moderator has already warned him of this on his talk page and hopefully he will thus discontinue this behavior.-- However implicit in this behavior is an example of his motivation, in where the desire (when it relates to me) is not for him to provide quality content (as I know he is more than capable of), but to continue a feud with me that I constantly have implored and pleaded with him to desist. Yes I have made a good deal of edits … but that was because my knowledge on the subject area, lead me to believe that the article was lacking in critical information and context. It is and will continue to be my desire to work collaboratively with any editor willing to work together in a respectful manner to create a better article, and I hope this can be achieved if and when the article is re-opened.  Red thoreau  (talk TR 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In support of a month long lockdown ?
I believe that actually a lockdown of a month (as has occurred in the past) may be needed ... especially considering the height of editor passions and intractability of current disputes. A “lengthy” cooling down period for all parties on the article may be in good order and would also allow those editors interested in future efforts, ample opportunity to discuss possible issues related to the current article. It would also provide time for other editors to contemplate joining on, to apply their knowledge and wikipedia know-how to the task at hand. Furthermore, for what it is worth, I believe that the article at present is beyond satisfactory (although yes possibly not up to FA status) but I fear that future flurries and barrages could be inevitable, without allowing editors time away from the daily “back and forth” and time to discuss the state of the article at present - free from ongoing alterations. Red thoreau (talk TR 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are other editors thoughts on this ? Thanks. Red thoreau  (talk TR 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have asked User:Nishkid64 to extend the lock for 7 more days to allow editors time to let their opinion be known. Red thoreau  (talk TR 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully protecting the article while we wait for others to casually come over here and participate in a discussion is not the way to go. It detracts from other users who want to edit the article in a non-controversial manner. The page protection is now expired, but if edit warring resumes, I will protect it again. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To: User talk:Coppertwig

 * I am only answering this so you will not block me for not following your instructions to put an entry on the talk page.


 * I am not the one who decides the POV. It is the FAR review  that decides. I would give you a link to their comments, but you templated me for giving you the link before. You  said that you would block me if I did it again.


 * The FAR review committee has stated many times that the requests for lists of specific problems are unreasonable. Also, I am not able to spend the next week or so doing all that work when it is not my opinion but the FAR editors who decides.


 * Please do not block me for this answer, as you have threatened, and this answer may fall under your blockable category.


 * I would rather bow out than go through anymore of this.


 * Please do not block me for this statement. These are my feelings.


 * However, if you do block me as you have threatened to do, there is nothing I can do about it.


 * I am too scared to continue. Mattisse  (Talk) 00:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality
The article has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag (which I disagree with, but nonetheless) ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality? Or represent a particular editor’s POV? And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Also the editor who applied the tag has not provided any opinion to justify that belief, and I believe that for the tag to remain ... there needs to be some rationale or suggestions. Red thoreau (talk TR 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead section
I became involved with this article as a result of seeing and becoming involved with a 3RR report at WP:AN/3RR a few days ago. I've decided that at least for a period of time, I'm going to try to maintain a neutral position on all content disputes in this article: that is, I won't express an opinion for or against any change to the article. This is so that I can assist other editors in negotiating with each other and reaching compromises. At some later time I may decide to play a different role here.

Since there were some reverts involving the lead (introductory) section just before page protection, I'd like to encourage discussion of the wording of the lead section. Below, I'm trying to list almost all differences among the versions. I may have neglected some changes, and when more than one version is the same I usually only list one version that has a given wording.

Please put comments in the discussion sections. I'd like to see as many people as possible expressing opinions about which wordings you prefer and why. Please be specific and refer to reliable sources if possible. You may add more points to the lists if I missed some changes you would like to discuss.

Comparing the lead section in these versions: See also Featured article review/Che Guevara --Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (A) Featured version, March 10, 2006
 * (B) After main page appearance, June 19, 2006
 * (C) Zleitzen version: 18:07 3 April 2007
 * (D) version of intro preferred by Mattisse: 04:24, 20 March 2008 Not my preferred version. It contains many isuses I objected to. Please do not include what you perceive as my prefereciences.  Mattisse  (Talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (E) Redthoreau version of intro: 04:36, 20 March 2008 (=current version of article)
 * (F) 01:07, 29 February 2008 A version around the time that there was talk page discussion between Mattisse and Polaris999 about the 1st paragraph.

On second thought, I think it would be better if people would post comments immediately below each numbered point below, so I've removed the "discussion" headers.

I apologize, Mattisse. I should not have stated that you preferred something when you hadn't actually said so. I was half-aware of that when I posted it. Would it be OK if I list it as "version of intro reverted to by Mattisse"? Or would you prefer that it be called something else, such as "version of intro fix after Jimmy Wales put the POV tag on article"? You're welcome to supply another version. I encourage everyone to suggest other alternate wordings for the variations listed below, especially trying to compromise or trying to accomplish the goals of different versions at the same time.

I selected the "Zleitzen" version as a version edited by Zleitzen after which there were very few or no edits by Zleitzen other than reverts or small changes, and before which there were a number of substantive edits by Zleitzen over a period of several days. I don't claim that it's necessarily the best representation of Zleitzen's work, but it would take more investigation to find out.

Although I'm going to avoid taking positions on content disputes, I may take positions on particular editing actions. In particular, if someone reverts something and if in my opinion the person doesn't seem to have given a reason for the revert as far as I'm aware, I may state on this talk page that I oppose the revert and I may even re-revert. I plan to do this regardless of whether I have a personal opinion about the merits of the material and regardless of what that opinion is. If someone states a reason covering a whole section or the whole article etc., I may or may not consider that as being a reason applying to a specific change to a specific sentence, depending on things like how vague the reason is, and whether someone else has given a reason to do the opposite. 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I've read this talk page and the FAR, I won't remember everything. I would appreciate it if people would put links or section titles or etc. in their edit summaries to particular sections of this talk page where they've explained the reasons for their edits.

I may also do some edits on my own, on things I expect to be non-controversial, including, for example, fixing grammatical errors. If you disagree with those edits, I encourage you to ask me to revert them. Note the "self-revert" userbox on my user page.

We can act as if it makes no difference whether the page is protected or not. Either way, we can get consensus on the talk page before making changes. If the page is protected, once we establish consensus for a change we can use the template to request that an admin make the change. The page is currently not protected. Redthoreau's edit changed the information in a template which has since been removed but did not change the protection status of the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, I appreciate all of your work and commitment on helping improve the article. I am willing to happily follow all of your suggestions. Could you please add protection to the article however ... because without ... I believe that all of our/your hardwork could be in vain. Red thoreau  (talk TR 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Redthoreau. I don't have the ability to protect pages, because I'm not an admin.  You can post a request at requests for page protection to have the page protected.  However, I don't know whether the request would be granted if there's no editwarring currently happening on the page.  See the policy on protecting pages, and the instructions at the top of the requests page.  --Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken quotes of editors from this talk page and posted them below where they seem to me to be relevant to discussing the various wordings listed. If you think I've taken your words out of context, I apologize in advance, and please feel free to delete, move, modify or strike out the quotes of yourself which I've put there (except that if someone has replied to them below, it might not be appropriate to delete etc. though striking out should be fine.) You're also free to add new comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - Are these snippets from the article sourced, if not in the lead then somewhere in the article? If they are not, then it is pointless to argue about which version. There is much in the article that is not sourced. I feel like that should be our first priority.    Mattisse  (Talk) 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! Sourcing is the key to deciding which version of each snippet is better.  I don't know what's sourced and what isn't.  --Coppertwig (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

first paragraph (first two paragraphs in some versions)
I apologize that I haven't taken the time to copy the wikitext, so links etc. are not shown here. If wordings from here are used it would be best to go to the original wikitext for them. Please put comments and suggestions immediately after each numbered point.
 * 1. B says as well as other countries, including the Congo which is not in A. C has leader of Cuban and internationalist guerillas.
 * 2. some versions say Guevara traveled rough. E says Guevara would embark on a journey.
 * 3. C says impoverished conditions instead of poverty. D says (particularly the indigenous peasantry. E says and be transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed.
 * 4. D includes author in the first sentence.
 * "no mention of him being an author ? He wrote more books during his lifetime than most authors." was said by Redthoreau 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps there does need to be a separate section/article on Che as author..." was said by Mattisse 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think that a summary section on him as author would be a good idea." was said by Polaris999  21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 5. D says medical physician instead of medic.
 * 6. D splits the first paragraph into two, after the first sentence.
 * 7. D says socio-economic inequalities were a result of capitalism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism.
 * 8. D says by socialism before "through revolution".
 * 9. E includes His ubiquitous image would also later morph into a countercultural alpha-numeric symbol, utilized by youth and leftist-inspired-movements throughout the world.
 * 10. E says insidious before "result of capitalism..." and World before "revolution".
 * 11. E includes This belief would lead him to become involved in Guatemala's social revolution under President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, whose eventual CIA assisted overthrow, would solidify Guevara’s radical ideology.Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Per 4, 10 & 11 ... I believe E it is more accurate for several reasons. (1) It is imperative that he be mentioned as an "Author" I believe, as he wrote over 10 + books. "Author" is usually granted to someone who writes more than 2 ... thus I believe one can safely describe him as an author. Plus his legacy is encapsulated in his words and books, which sell thousands of copies each year throughout the world. (2) Also Guevara's ultimate stated goal was not revolution in Cuba, Bolivia etc ... but "World Revolution" against what he viewed as global Imperialism. From Guevara’s own words:


 * (3) Arbenz's overthrow with help of the CIA, I would contend is essential because that in my mind is the "watershed" moment in Guevara's life. Until then he was a vagabond traveler, medic, poet, and "Marxist in theory" but not reality. It was his outrage of what he perceived as the CIA toppling Arbenz at the behest of United Fruit and Business interests (which he became disgusted with while personally touring United Fruit holdings) that solidified his view that the US was a hegemonic power that needed to be revolted against with force. If Arbenz is never overthrown, then I believe Guevara would have probably lived out the rest of his days as a wayward traveler (which I think his history bears out). Thus not to include that in the intro to me is a glaring omission. From Guevara’s own words:
 * Red thoreau (talk TR 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that from his private diaries or a published version? According to Jon Anderson, there is a big difference. (See p. 213)  Mattisse  (Talk) 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither, an actual speech he delivered. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But where did the "version" of the speech come from? A transcript in what language? Who translated it? Who published it? What it edited by Che for publication, as Anderson says Che did for his published works?  Mattisse  (Talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of the word author, where I have been quoted voicing various opinions, it is interesting that neither Karl Marx nor Vladimir Lenin, for example, is  described  as an "author". Maybe in these cases their political identity and formulations  can hardly be wrapped into the word "author" which would be demeaning in the context of the life and the effect  that either  has had politically and historically?  Mattisse  (Talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However, looking more through Jon Anderson's book there are a lot of references to Che Guevera as a propraganda machine for the revolution and his "after the fact mythification" of the revolution, the stark difference between his private diaries and his published versions of events, the creation of "Cuban revolution folklore" and the fact that even now all his private diaries are not available (pages 180, 213, 225, for example). Below is a description of one of his earlier efforts (Jon Anderson, pp 237-238)


 * So maybe the author part is key to his role in the Cuban Revolution.  Mattisse  (Talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(Anderson p, 241.) Mattisse  (Talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, you make it as if "Revolutionary folklore" is original to Cuba. It is inherent in every single nation, and every single revolution in world history. George Washington for instance in American folklore, is not seen as a slave owning, aristocrat, who as a 22 year old colonel killed 10 unarmed French ambassadors at Jumonville Glen …. But rather a noble revolutionary Who could not tell a lie about cutting down his father's cherry tree, and who was strong enough to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is very evident from Jon Anderson is that is what Guevara's role was. He took on the job of creating the job of creating the myths for Cuba.
 * Guevara was a propaganda machine. Publishing these articles which would flood Cuba, running a newpaper, etc. {p.286) He was the creator of the "revolutionary folklore." He was following the textbook. He did not want anything original to Cuba.  Mattisse  (Talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading Andersons 800 pages ... is the main thing you are left with - is Che as a "propaganda machine"? In the case of a popular revolt ... "propaganda" is necessary. That is why Guevara created Radio Rebelde ... to counteract the "propaganda" Batista was also putting out about Castro and his fighters. Both sides were using it --- as all Armies in wartime do. I am not sure, why you attribute this behavior to Guevara as somehow being "sinister" or different, than all armies in war time – regardless of ideology. Hell, the US was plotting Operation Northwoods as a means of propaganda for instance. One could make the argument as well ... that it was Radio Rebelde (Which Che set up) that was the single most important entity to Castro’s ultimate success. Red thoreau  (talk TR 06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (The above comment was modified by Redthoreau at 16:58 30 March 2008 (UTC).)--Coppertwig (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdate) Redthoreau, Please just address the content and not make comments on the editor.

Of course, Guevara does things for a reason as does everyone. I did not say he had no reason nor did I say his writing was the most important contribution of Guevara. I am trying to piece the story together. I believe, although I am no longer clear what section I am posting, under that we were discussing Gue's importance as an author. I am merely providing quotations that represent the sourced information I have found so far on the subject.

Also, Do you have reference sources for what you say about or is it a synthesis representing your opinion and therefore Original Research? Mattisse (Talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Note: The above is struck out as the comment it was in response to has been changed substantially and I am not sure it pertains anymore. Mattisse (Talk) 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We were discussing his role as an author in the section "Last part of lead" below, and as I state there, I would be more than happy to provide sources for any statement for which you are unclear of its authenticity or accuracy. Just let me know what you want me to cite, as it is very time consuming to citation every 4-5 words i.e. "The Earth is Round" . Red thoreau  (talk TR 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been the most controversial section over time. Each statement in it has been opposed at one time or another. Please do not dismiss the requests of other editors for sourcing as asking for references for "the earth is round" statements. (By the way, the earth is not completely round.) Also, everything in the lead must have a source elsewhere in the article anyway. How else do we evaluate "undue weight"? Mattisse (Talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Striking out as the subject of thread has changed due to change in comments above. Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the word "author": the following quote might be of interest. It says "écrivain", which I translate as "writer".
 * By the way, I'm sorry I modified the header of one of these subsections; I hadn't understood at that time how people were trying to arrange them. (Also, Mattisse, I put some messages to you on my talk page.)  --Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm sorry I modified the header of one of these subsections; I hadn't understood at that time how people were trying to arrange them. (Also, Mattisse, I put some messages to you on my talk page.)  --Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

second paragraph (third and fourth paragraphs in some version(s))
I'm starting the numbering at 101, not because there are more than 100 edits to consider, but in order to allow room to add more numbers in the previous section if necessary.
 * 101. A says Guevara died at the hands of the Bolivian Army in La Higuera near Vallegrande on 9 October 1967. Participants in and witnesses to the events of his final hours testify that his captors summarily executed him, perhaps to avoid a public trial followed by imprisonment in Bolivia. B is similar but has executed him without trial. C says more briefly, Guevara was summarily executed by the Bolivian Army, in the town of La Higuera near Vallegrande on 9 October 1967. E says very briefly, where he was captured with help of the CIA and executed.
 * "“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 ?" was said by Redthoreau 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think you are confusing "died in the arms of" with "died at the hands of". The wording is correct." was said by 63.173.51.122 on 17:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 102. D divides the second paragraph into two.
 * 103. D says Later while in Mexico in 1956 instead of Some time later.
 * 104. D says from the regime of the U.S. supported Cuban dictator General Fulgencio Batista 
 * 105. D says For a few months after the success of the revolution, Guevara was assigned the role of "supreme prosecutor", as understood under revolutionary theory, overseeing the public "revolutionary tribunals" [1] and executions of between 55 [2] and a few hundred[3] suspected war criminals associated with the previous regime.[4][5] For his part Jon Lee Anderson author of the biography 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life' [6] has stated that: "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, rape, torture, or murder." [7]
 * "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. ..." was said by Mattisse 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (paragraph break rendered in wikitext by Coppertwig)
 * "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. ..." was said by Polaris999 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." was said by Mattisse 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Could be removed as far as I am concerned ..." was said by Polaris999 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 106. D says touring the world and meeting with leaders on behalf of Cuban socialism
 * 107. E says and be promoted to commander in (26 of July movement)
 * 108. E says playing a pivotal role in the successful
 * 109. E says US backed instead of US supported Cuban dictator
 * 110. E says After the Cuban revolution, Guevara would serve in many prominent governmental positions including President of the National Bank and “supreme prosecutor” over the revolutionary tribunals and executions of suspected war criminals from the previous regime.
 * 111. E says he was also a prolific author
 * 112. E says to incite instead of to fomentCoppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Last part of lead

 * 201. B says Somewhat ironically, this photo of the Marxist icon has also spawned a capitalist merchandising machine.
 * 202. The last two paragraphs of D have extensive discussion of his legacy: re writings by and about him; quotes by Jonathan Green and Ariel Dorfman, etc.
 * "...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. ..." was said by Mattisse 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (though perhaps talking about the legacy section of the article, not the lead) Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 203. E says Both notorious for his disciplined brutality and revered for his unwavering dedication to his revolutionary doctrines,
 * 204. E has a paragraph about his legacy, different from the version in D, including romantic visage.


 * As the editor who last compiled it, I favor version E, and consider it to be the most accurate and encompassing. As for issues related to proportionality to the rest of the article, I feel that those issues should not be addressed, until we reach consensus on the rest of the article, as proportions may be ever evolving. I am also willing to address anyones concerns on the specific rationale for the wording, and provide citations to back up all/any of the leads claims. Red thoreau  (talk TR 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (quote from Jon Anderson, p.282)
 * Then follows a description of an incident in which Lalo (one of Che's soldiers) impulsively held a pistol to another soldier's head and shot him. Following the decision regarding what the punishment should be for Lalo, a large group of fighters threw down their weapons and demanded to leave, including the head of Che's disciplinary commission.
 * (quote from Jon Anderson, p.283)
 * (Italics in text above are Anderson's.) Is this what you mean when you say Che was revered for his unwavering dedication to his revolutionary doctrines,?  Mattisse  (Talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Partially yes, and his "disciplined brutality". There are numerous accounts of the men who fought alongside Che, who recall him as being a strict disciplinarian and an extremely demanding leader who used cold calculation in dealing with those who swayed from his path. However, some of these same men who fought alongside him in the same breath will talk about how they also “loved”, “feared”, and “admired” him, and saw him as a “fatherly” type figure. I think there is a great deal of complexity with Guevara, which is not as black and white as “killer” or “Messiah”. He is controversial, beloved, and despised by a myriad of people all for differing reasons. This makes articles about him so difficult to write, because to address all of the complexity, one has to appear as if they are discussing 2 different men, thus invalidating both accounts because of discrepancy. The same man who is prayed to next to Mary and Christ in Bolivia to this day as a Saint, is also the man who is viewed as analogous to Hitler by embittered Cuban exiles. His lionization also refers to different aspects of his life and personality, than those his detractors rely on. Not realizing that both can be accurate. He can be an empathetic, loving, charitable, martyred rebel, devoted to the poor and afflicted ... and be a cold, calculating, rigid, killer, who was quick to execute those he viewed as “traitors” to his lofty ideals. Both are possible. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give sources for this, preferably not from his published work especially as Anderson says there is a stark difference (p. 231). Or is this your synthesis?    Mattisse  (Talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, which statements would you like citations for? (Keeping in mind, it may take me a day or two to compile some of them for you). Also are you ever going to give me a citation for the account of him fleeing and almost shooting his own man, I have been asking for? Red thoreau (talk TR 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind as well that Jon Lee Anderson was given access to all of Che's diaries and personal items (Hence, why he was able to compose such a definitive portrait) - and that editing of personal memoirs which are written without intention of ever being published to the entire world, is a common occurrence, especially when they relate to national heroic figures of that particular nation. Moreover, a great deal of his work was published while he was still alive, and is not based on his personal diaries, but his speeches that he personally delivered, and the ideas that he personally wrote. Can you imagine the U.S. government allowing full unadulterated access to a Reagan’s, Ford’s, or Nixon’s personal diaries for instance - the presumption would be absurd on its face. Guevara has received more in depth investigation and personal inquiry and access into his own private thoughts than almost any controversial figure I can name from the 20th century. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like sources for almost all of it. For example, per MoS, everything in quotes needs a direct citation. Also, for everything that comes after "I think" as it is not what you think that is important, as I am sure you are aware. Give sources for all statements. Remember that when Guevara was publishing while he was alive he was consciously working and reworking on the after the fact mythification of Cuban revolutionary folklore and its heros, and see the other quotes I have put on this talk page from Anderson that Guevara was consciously creating a new history for the new Cuba he as creating.  Mattisse  (Talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor Grammatical edits
I have made a few minor grammatical edits and wording alterations to the article. However I will not address "Content" without first discussing or allowing other editors a chance to review the content, here on the talk page. It is my hope that other editors will follow this same course of action, as to prevent inevitable edit warring, and a future page lockdown. Red thoreau (talk TR 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the procedure of discussing first before editing. I agree that this doesn't have to apply to non-controversial edits such as correcting grammar -- realizing that if someone does object to those edits, they then become controversial.  I might discuss even grammatical changes before editing, but don't expect others to do so.
 * Thank you for your comment about version E above, Redthoreau. I think it would be helpful if you would get more specific, and put comments under some of the numbered points above commenting on specific phrases that differ between the sections.  For example, when you say that E is more accurate, could you back that up with references to the sources? Coppertwig (talk)


 * Sure ... doing so up above after each differentiation. Red thoreau  (talk TR 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, would you forgive me for having mistakenly marked a version as being preferred by you? It would be helpful if you would also add some comments to the section about the lead above, though of course you don't have to. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A minor grammatical edit: I'd like to change the punctuation in "Ernesto Guevara de la Serna was born on June 14, 1928 in Rosario, Argentina. The eldest of five children in a family of mixed Spanish and Irish descent; both his father and mother were of Basque ancestry."  I'd like to change the punctuation so that the part "The eldest ... descent" becomes part of the first sentence rather than of the second.  The reason is that, dangling, one can't find a noun for the adjective "eldest" to modify. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding an apostrophe in "by trips end" to make "by trip's end".
 * I hope you don't mind, Redthoreau, if I comment on some of the grammatical changes you've made. I'm intending to avoid getting into content disputes, so there are merely suggestions. Coppertwig (talk)


 * I don't mind at all ... you have shown yourself to be more than fair, and I appreciate your fair handed objectivity in relation to these matters. Red thoreau  (talk TR 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "which is used in much the same way as "hey", "pal", "eh", or "mate" are employed colloquially now in various English-speaking countries." The way you changed "are" to "and" is fine.  Another alternative is to leave it as "are", and change "as" to "that".  I think the semicolon before "and" should be a comma, and that possibly some editors would argue that there should be no punctuation before "and" (I'm not sure about that).
 * Re "a shipment of Škoda infantry and light artillery weapons were sent": I suggest keeping the singular "was", since "shipment" is singular.
 * Re changing "most of the 82 men died or were executed" to "most of the 82 men were killed or executed": This seems to me to be of a similar nature to the changes which have been found to be controversial in this article, and to change the meaning significantly. Therefore, would you please provide a reason, Redthoreau, for making this change?  Similarly for deleting "formerly Belgian Congo, later Zaire and". Coppertwig (talk)


 * To answer your Q: The reason for the first change was for more specificity and accuracy. I believe that as it read previously, the vague wording left open the possibility that the men simply "died" from sickness, the seas, old age etc. When someone is killed from a natural disaster or illness, the common wording is "died" ... however when someone is shot in combat (as these men were, the common word is "killed"). For example ... i.e. JFK didn't “die” while driving through Dallas ... he was "killed” while driving through Dallas etc. Also the "executed" is not a matter of debate, as it is universally accepted that Batista's forces had a "no prisoner" policy in relation to the attacking rebels. As for deleting the former chronological names for the DRC, that was simply a matter of streamlining content. I found it unnecessary to list all of the nation’s former names, and believe the former and current one sufficed. For instance in mentioning a historical figure of a certain nation, it isn't necessary to list all of the chronological names that country has had up to the present. The contemporary one at the time, followed by the present day one I believe suffices. As always I am open to debate on any of my comments, and respect your opinion. Red thoreau  (talk TR 14:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "Following the coup, he again volunteered to fight but soon after Arbenz took refuge in the Mexican Embassy and told his foreign supporters to leave the country." I would insert commas before and after "but soon after", or at least after "fight", to make it easier to parse the sentence. As it is now, it looks as if "soon after Arbenz took refuge" is a phrase, but the rest of the sentence won't parse if that's treated as a phrase.
 * Re " After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine consulate where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to Mexico. " I would put a comma after "consulate". Also, I see ref tags here.  Are there supposed to be any ref tags in this article? Does this need to be converted to a Harvard citation?  I'd like to do that, as I need to learn how:  I'm only familiar with ref tags.  Please confirm that the ref tags are not supposed to be there and then I'll figure out how to do the Harvard citation.  Do we use ref tags for anything in this article? In this case, it seems to be a name of a book, so perhaps it's not supposed to be in ref tags.
 * Re " Although he planned to be the group's medic, Guevara participated in the military training with the members of the Movement, and at the end of the course, was called "the best guerrilla of them all" by their instructor, Colonel Alberto Bayo. " I would add a comma after "and".  If that's objected to, I would remove the comma after "course".  Again, here's a ref tag, and even a citation template; I suppose these are supposed to be converted to the other citation system. (Again, please confirm and then I'll do it.) -- Coppertwig (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, I appreciate your efforts and am more than happy to address any questions you have in relation to my comments. As for your grammatical suggestions, I believe that all of them are justifiable and would support you changing any/all of them, if you wish. I will reply to each independent issue separately up above. Red thoreau  (talk TR 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Redthoreau. I hope I'm not taking up too much space on this talk page with minor grammatical points, but I'd like to be careful not to make edits that might lead to conflict.  Later when we've maintained calm, collaborative interaction for a while I may decide to be slightly bolder.  By the way, I'd like people to know that besides my self-revert policy I'm also a member of the Harmonious Editing Club (see userboxes on my userpage) which means that I voluntarily restrict myself to the 1RR: one revert per page per 24 hours.  With regards to self-reverting, though, I'd like to mention that if I re-revert a revert and someone asks me to self-revert that, I probably won't.  Other edits I would usually self-revert if asked, at least while I'm maintaining a neutral position as I am now.
 * Thank you for explaining the reasons for those edits. I should perhaps have made clear that I wasn't opposing the content of the edits.  I was only questioning the procedure, that is, whether edits are made without discussion or explanation.  I appreciate your taking the time to reply with those explanations.
 * I've posted a message to Mattisse and Redthoreau on my talk page.
 * More grammatical (etc.) fixes: "an assault on Cuba from Mexico via the Granma an old, leaky cabin cruiser. "  I suggest a comma after "Granma".
 * "most of the 82 men were killed or executed upon capture." This sounds as if it might mean "were either killed upon capture or executed upon capture", which doesn't make sense. I suggest changing it to "most of the 82 men were either killed in the attack or executed upon capture."
 * "as a bedraggled fighting force deep into the Sierra Maestra mountains" I would change "into" to "in".
 * "With Castro and his men withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether he was alive or dead " Here, I suppose "he" means Castro, but at first glance (and confusing it with another time period) I wondered whether it meant Guevara.  I suggest replacing "he" with "Castro"; but there may be a way to re-word the sentence so that Castro doesn't appear twice.  Something like "With the group withdrawn to the Sierra, the world wondered whether Castro was alive or dead."
 * "Che considered this "the most painful days of the war."" I suggest "these" insted of "this", since "days" is plural. Something more specific could perhaps be used instead, such as "those months" or "the time period following that interview".
 * "Back in their camp they learn of the murder of Frank Paiz": I suggest past tense "learned" to match the tense of the rest of the paragraph.
 * "Ley de la Sierra": This appears only as a superscript, although it's part of the sentence. I suggest repeating it in normal-sized text before the superscript.
 * "The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime, was done under the hope of preventing the people themselves from taking justice into their own hands, as happened during the anti-Machado rebellion, which threw the society into chaos." I suggest deleting the comma after "regime" in order to avoid separating subject and verb with a comma.  "The justification...was done under" doesn't seem to make sense.  I suggest deleting "done under".   Another possibility would be to delete "the justification for".
 * "show down ": Change to one word, "showdown".
 * "and President of the National Bank of Cuba.": period should be a comma.
 * "To display this Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane as did Castro." I suggest a comma after "this" and a comma after "cane".
 * First sentence of "Disappearance from Cuba": I suggest, per WP:EL, not mentioning the link to the taped interview there, but only listing it in an "External links" section at the end of the article.
 * Second sentence: Note that there are several "citation needed" tags.  Maybe one of you could find references for these things in your books.  I just tried to find it in my book.  I didn't even find the bit about him speaking at the UN in New York.  Instead, I found it saying that in March 1964 he represented Cuba in Geneva at the first world conference on commerce and development. (p. 339).
 * "...and then vanished altogether, his whereabouts were a great mystery...":I suggest changing the comma to a period to make this two sentences, now it's a comma splice :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above. Nice work and excellent suggestions. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I'll put them in later, and I'll do some work on the citation formatting. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perspective on FAR - Please do not move again
User:Coppertwig, if you are sincerely wishing to help improve the article so it can have the POV tag removed and pass FAR, please read Featured article review/Che Guevara. These are the complaints that must be addressed. My reading of the complaints is that the massive POV is the major complaint and until that is addressed, worrying about commas etc. is not going to address FAR concerns. It is noted in the FAR that the POV increased substantially in January 2008. The article was started in 04/15/2002.


 * Article stats
 * First edit 04/15/2002
 * Total edits: 8573
 * Total edits beginning 2008: 1933 (20% of total article edits since 04/15/2002)

Since 04/15/2002  the edits break down 8573 (combining major and minor edits)


 * ---Breakdown of edits---


 * User:Polaris999 has made 2,453 edits.
 * First edit 09/03/05
 * Last edit 03/02/2008


 * User:Redthoreau has made 640 edits
 * First edit: 12/09/2007
 * Last edit: 03/26/2008


 * User:Mattisse has made 219 edits.
 * First edit: 7/12/07
 * Last edit: 03/20/2008


 * User:Zleitzen has made 180 edits.
 * First edit 08/06/06
 * Last edit 07/19/07 (he has left wikipedia)

Until the POV situation is dealt with, good editors will not be willing to work on the article. There was discussion in FAR to revert the article to one of the earlier versions as the POV was considered so ingrained in the article that it would be easier to start with a cleaner, shorter version. The following is copied from the FAR review. Please keep in mind that Sandy Georgia is a neutral editor. It is her job to monitor the FAR.
 * Copied from FAR page

This article reached FA status in the spring of 2006. Concerns now include  WP:LEAD, WP:SS, WP:EL, and  WP:NOT. In short, the article may no longer met WIAFA. Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mattisse 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: long-standing concerns on the talk page about NPOV are more serious than the other issues raised above. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:
 * File size: 143 kB
 * Prose size (HTML): 61 kB
 * References (HTML): 24 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)
 * References (text only): 7 kB
 * Images: 122 kB

Current version (Feb 23)
 * File size: 385 kB
 * Prose size (HTML): 113 kB
 * References (HTML): 108 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 69 kB (11599 words)
 * References (text only): 42 kB
 * Images: 348 kB

The article is better than 50% larger than the article that was promoted in 2006; it's not unlikely that POV has crept in. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted.  There are WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet crit. 2.  In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose WP:LEAD (example:   Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed.[13] to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.)  This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) The article's size has drastically been reduced since those comments, thus I believe they are no longer relevant in reference to the article being too large. (2) The article itself has been drastically edited, cut down, streamlined (a great deal by yourself and to your credit Mattisse) since those comments, thus I believe they may no longer refer to the article in its current state. (3) More importantly, Much of the POV was in the "Legacy" section which now no longer exists as part of the article. I believe that the article is written from a very neutral stand at present, and no editor has yet to point out a specific instance of POV (which is subjective in nature) that we can discuss, and possibly correct. (4) I feel that an evaluation of the current article is the only thing that would be helpful ... not comments of an article that bears little resemblance to the one, with which those comments refer. (5) Me and Coppertwig (above) and hopefully more editors in the future, are painstakingly going through each sentence and section to provide/investigate their justification. I would invite you to participate Mattisse. (6) I would add the classic quip in relation to out of context statistics: "The average human has one breast and one testicle." ;o) Red thoreau  (talk TR 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Please do not move my comments again to suit your needs. Article size was one issue that removing POV helped reduce drastically. The rest of the comments still apply. POV is in the eye of the beholder. You may think taking it out of the legacy section removed them, but others may not agree. Also the other comment about links at the bottom are still a problem if the article is to retain it's FA. Perhaps you do not want it to? Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 16:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, It was not moved to "suit my needs". It was moved to retain chronological relevance. Almost all the comments in the material you posted are in reference to the article on Feb 23 ... that resembles very little of the article today (much to your credit BTW). Thus the comments are misleading. (1) The size has been drastically reduced to an acceptable level. (2) Yes, POV is subjective, which is why Coppertwig is allowing us to go through each section and provide rationale for disputes. You should take part in that if interested, instead of preoccupying yourself with article statistics. I know you have valuable experience to offer, and I wish you would utilize it in an collaborative, non combative way. (3) If you believe that POV exists ... then by all means share with us, so we can address which statements you feel are POV. You have yet do it, yet continue to espouse the POV accusation. (4) Please refrain from subtle insults or insinuations of my intention. I have nothing to be gained by the article losing its FA status. However the FA status is not the end all for the article. The rationale for wikipedia is to create the best most accurate article possible, and if the powers that be decide it meets FA status, then that is a different story. (5) An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful (especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.) (6) I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved final product … and please refrain from a combative tone, which is not constructive. Red thoreau  (talk TR 16:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the reference to the article links at the bottom was made when the bottom of the article featured 4 sections of around 40 external links. That is not the case now. As it has been reduced by probably 80 %. Red thoreau  (talk TR 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Feature article status for Che Guevara
On the Feature Article Review page there is the following statement:


 * The featured article director, User:Raul654, or his delegates User:Marskell and User:Joelr31, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

User:Marskell has made the following comment on the Che Guevara FAR. Marskell's last directions regarding the article were the following:


 * ---FARC commentary---


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

Redthoreu, since you are running things here, you should be the one to answer Marskell on the Featured article review/Che Guevara. All editors can give ideas on the article talk page, but FAR prefers, for the sake of clarity, that only one editor take on the role of responding to their comments and suggestions and the comments and suggestions  other reviewers make on Featured article review/Che Guevara. Sincerely,   Mattisse  (Talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't consider myself "running anything" as all I want to be is an equal collaborative partner ... but I did address several issues and make a request for current critiques on the FA review Page. Hopefully this will let us all know where we stand. Red thoreau  (talk TR 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Well someone has to do it. That is how the FAR collaboration works. Right now the consensus on FAR is that the article has massive problems and no one has responded to User talk:Marskell's suggestions. He is the one who makes the decision. You have commented on the FAR review page, but you have posted nothing that has addressed their concerns. Just disagreeing with them is not enough. You have to actively show that you are addressing their concerns by listing what you are doing to address them. If no one responds the article will be automatically lose its Wikipedia:Feature Article status as it is no longer one of Wikipedia's best articles. If there is some response and the consensus is that the article is salvageable, the decision would more likely be to move on to Stage Two where there will be additional time, and hopefully some willing editors, to help the article fix its problems and retain it's Star (right hand corner) designating it as a Feature Article, one of Wikipedia's best. See Featured article criteria. Someone needs to respond. You are the only editor left. What do you suggest? Just lose the star that User:Zleitzen and User:Polaris999 worked so hard to receive? Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 21:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Stats placed aside - moved here from my talk page to article talk page
(copied from my talk page) Article discussion should not be posted on a user's talk pages.

Coppertwig is willing to provide a process for all editors to go through each section and provide their suggestions, rationale for dispute, etc. If you wish to be a part of that, then please participate and allow (the valuable experience I know you have) to be utilized. An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful (especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.) I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved article. Red thoreau (talk TR 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not make article comments on my talk page. Anything that pertains to this article should be posted here. Therefore, I am moving comments here where they belong.


 * ---My response---
 * Perhaps you could ask Coppertwig to explain to me where I should putting the comments that nothing is considered "dealt with" until it is posted on Featured article review/Che Guevara. For an example of how a FAR review on  a contentious issues proceed, please see Featured article candidates/Kannada literature, or Featured article candidates/1988 Pacific hurricane season or look through Featured article review now Featured article now being reviewed through FAR. Whether a specific complaint has been remedied is decided on the FAR comment pages primarily by consensus. The article talk pages are for editors to discuss whatever they want, for example, considerations too trivial to post on Featured article review/Che Guevara. If enough Support comments are not made there, the article will fail.


 * I reposted the stats because until FAR says the complaints are dealt with, this talk page should be furthering the goal of getting a favorable response on Featured article review/Che Guevara. Until their is a consensus there that the problem is fixed, the problem should not be consider as fixed. Redthoreau, your opinion that a problem is fixed is not enough to consider it fixed.

Sincerely, Mattisse  (Talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My request from the FA review page
To the myriad of editors who have commented on this page, and who have made suggestions, I am sending out a request to have you all view the newest version of the article (as of March 27 - One month after the FAR review into effect) ... and please update your critiques, suggestions, criticisms, etc. The article has had considerable modifications, been drastically reduced in size, gone through extensive grammatical and word editing, and had a good deal of "excess" content removed, etc over the last month (thanks to the hard work of several editors). When comparing the two versions, the improvement I believe is clear from when the review went into effect. To view the difference ...March 27th 08 version vs Feb 23, 08 Version = when the Review was ordered. For comparison also see the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006. It would be my contention that the current version at least exceeds the quality of the original FA version, but it is the collective view that matters here. So please make your opinion known as it is appreciated. Red thoreau (talk TR 19:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Placed to update critiques as of March 27 (one month later)
Since the article has been altered so drastically since the original review ... I am creating this new section to voice those concerns about the current March 27th version of the article. Thank you and please feel free to make any and all suggestions. Also specifics are appreciated as they will allow editors a chance to rectify your specific concern. Red thoreau (talk TR 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Justify continuation of Neutrality and Cleanup tags here
Since considerable edits and alterations have been made to the article in the past month since the institution of both of these tags, I feel it is prudent to re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns in relation to the either of these issues in the article. If you are an editor who does, and thus feel the tags should remain, please state so below and justify your reasoning. Also if you believe so, make suggestions on how your specific concerns could be alleviated. Note that an absence of further concerns after some time … can justifiably be viewed as the non-existence of further concerns in relation to these issues. Thank you. Red thoreau (talk TR 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that is the case, that "it is prudent to re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns in relation to the either of these issues in the article", then respond to FAR and see what the consensus is. They are the one's who wanted the tags. If you do nothing, the tags will remain.  Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope both of you won't mind if I try to restate your messages in my own words. Part of the reason for doing this is to discover any misunderstandings, so if I get it wrong, then it means it's good that I said something because then there's a chance to explain again and try to get the message understood correctly. I apologize in advance for any offense I might cause by getting something wrong, though. If I understand right, Redthoreau believes that the article may have already been improved enough to justify removing the neutrality and cleanup tags; and Redthoreau is asking that anyone who still believes there are POV or cleanup issues to say specifically what they are and exactly what would need to be done to fix them.
 * If I understand right, Mattisse believes that it's not good enough to ask here about the POV and cleanup concerns, but that someone needs to bring up these questions at the FAR page or else the tags will stay. Redthoreau has posted on the FAR page some invitations for discussion, and if I understand right Mattisse believes that the question about tags would also have to be posted at the FAR in order to be able to possibly remove the tags.  If I understand right, Mattisse opposes removing the tags based on discussion on this page only but believes the FAR needs to be consulted about it.  Please correct me if I have anything wrong. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the same question on tags, slightly edited, to the FAR page as well. Red thoreau  (talk TR 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment to Coppertwig. No, you misunderstand me. I have no feelings one way or the other. I just want proper procedure to be followed. User:Zleitzen and User:Polaris999 were my wikipedia editing buddies before they left and I would hate to see the Star removed because no response was give to FAR. I do have some interest in good writing, that is, I am a writer/editor, but that is as far as it goes. You are making assumptions about me. I wish you would stop. Sincerely,   Mattisse  (Talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse ... You have no opinion ? Hasn't your primary contention, you keep repeating, been that the article in your estimation is POV and needs correction? Is that not an opinion? Do you not believe that the article is POV ? Have I misunderstood you ? In your personal opinion, does the article violate NPOV or not ? Red thoreau  (talk TR 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) Please stop attacking me. Please comment on article content and not on editors. I have edited not the article since User:Coppertwig threatened me a week ago. I wish you both stop taking everything the wrong way. You and Coppertwig have received what you wanted. This article seems to be between you and Coppertwig now. He made some threatening remarks above about what he would if he did not like an edit. I reiterate. My last edit was over a week ago, and I certainly would not risk editing again. Are you and Coppertwig saying I cannot post on the article talk page also?  Sincerely,   Mattisse  (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, my intention was not to "attack you" and I apologize if you misinterpreted me asking you for clarification as an "attack." Also I am not aware of how my above statement qualifies as an attack on you ... but I suppose in your perception it is, which I regret. I simply am confused over your stance. At present ... do you find the article to be neutral? In its present state, do you find the article to be NPOV? Thanks. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should clarify. Good writing means being accurate (to me). I agreed with all the other opinions on the FAR page that the article had massive POV problems. Are you saying that because I want the article to be NPOV, that makes me POV?  If I don't agree with  everything you write in the article, that makes me POV?  Does it work the other way around also? Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and want accuracy as well. I do not wish for any inaccurate material to be in the article. Are you aware of any ? If you are please let us know so we can change them immediately. As for POV ... wouldn’t you finding the article to be POV be your own Point Of View ? As for POV or Neutrality ... I also want the article to be neutral and NPOV as well. That is why I have asked and will ask again, for you to point out any instances where you believe either is present, so we can discuss them and fix them. Thanks. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, I seem to have messed up again. I'm sorry, Mattisse.  I'll try harder not to make any assumptions about you.  I really hope that you will continue to participate in discussion on this talk page and in editing the article.  I certainly don't want to appear to be so threatening that I discourage you from editing the article at all -- that would be a big loss.  I said that I might do re-reverts if people do reverts without first discussing or giving reasons (or at least, that's what I meant).  But I restrict myself to 1RR, so I hope that's not much of a threat!  I hope to see you making suggestions on this talk page for some specific changes and explaining why you think those changes would be good. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that you have very clearly taken a side by condoning Redthoreau's continuing person attacks on me, without remonstration. (Comment on the content not on the editor -- all his comments to me have ignored this rule.) Even on your talk page he has done so with no reproach (other than one very mild one) from you. Perhaps you started off on the wrong foot by threatening me in the very beginning of your entrance on the scene, treating me very differently than Redthoreau. Further, you seemed to have a preconceived notion about me from the start. You have made several assumptions about me and acted on them. I do not know how or why you you have developed your picture of me. I have not edited since you have entered into this. I will not edit this article again until all editors are allowed to participate without threats, personal attacks and fear of arbitrary reversion. Also, I am just tired of the personal attacks and the ugly atmosphere than now pervades. Nothing I have suggested has even been received neutrally by Redthoreau. All my attempts to help have been received negatively. There is no assumption of good faith Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied in a comment addressed partly to Mattisse and partly to both Mattisse and Redthoreau in this section of my talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation for story?
The article now has a recent addition which states: "Che's next plan to hit an enemy garrison did not go as planned and Che, in fear and about to flee, almost shot one of his own sentries. Although the garrison eventually surrendered, Che had already run away." Is there a citation for this account? Mattisse, I believe you added it, can you provide me the citation for the story? Thanks. Red thoreau (talk TR 04:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is imperative that a source be provided for this "very specific" account, for it to remain included in the article. I have tried to find it, but have been unsuccessful. Red thoreau  (talk TR 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is imperative that the whole article be sourced, not only this specific statement. And I do not think a period piece from Time (1960) will do because it is very clear that Castro and Guevara impression-managed the international  media. According to Jon Anderson, by 1957 "the international press was beating a path to Fidel's door." {See numerous references in Anderson, including p. 301 plus the book The Man Who Invented Fidel by Anthony dePalma)   Mattisse  (Talk) 04:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So does this mean you don't have a source for this story? I specifically asked about this account not a red herring on Time Magazine. Red thoreau  (talk TR 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete it. Who cares? We should start deleting unsourced statements. Lets have at it. Getting rid of unsourced statements would be a good place to start, as LingNut has been pointing out.  Mattisse  (Talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A: I care, and you should too. So did you just make this story up when you recently added it? If so then that itself is a separate problem. As for other unsourced material ... I feel that those statements which appear dubious should be researched, and then if they can't be located, mentioned on the talk page, and then if others can't ascertain their origin ... deleted. Just like this one will now be. :o) Red thoreau  (talk TR 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, (my persona opinion only) is that it was a waste of time for you to worry about that one statement when there so many more important sourced statements that are of more important to the article. Would you like me to put citations needed on those states, to direct  your attention elsewhere?     Mattisse  (Talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) I don't find it insignificant that you included a play by play account of a "skirmish" that apparently never occurred, in where you attempted to paint Guevara as a fleeing coward who almost shot his own soldier. The motivations for such possible “vandalism” to me are unclear (other than to besmirch his role as a Guerrilla fighter), but I believe worthy of correction. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added four references for the play by play "skirmish", as you call it.  Mattisse  (Talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the citation, and have since made the passage reflect your stated source of Anderson pg 270. Red thoreau  (talkTR 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened??? - restoring to yesterday
When I went to bed last night the article was 79 K bytes ... and this morning it is 138 K bytes. And has apparently been reverted back to a version before weeks of edits during FA by numerous editors (Polaris, Mattisse, Myself etc). ??? All with no discussion on the talk page whatsoever. As a result I am going to restore the article back to the version yesterday on March 27 ... and editors can feel free to contribute from that point. Red thoreau (talk TR 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The one which has lost a great deal of content and is full of POV and other issues and tags? Is the version you reverted back to really a substantial improvement than before other than being condensed? I'm afraid to see a great article eroded when clearly a lot of time and effort has fgone into it -too much in my view which is why it currnetly has issues; I believe it has been over edited. Much respect to the editors who have worked on it, but why has it suddenly been tagged over the last week or two? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 19:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The tags were added a while back, the general consensus seems to be that the version that was taken to FAR was uncommonly large for a FA. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should size constitute a problem? It was promoted as 138 K bytes, so why should now somebody question its size? The problem was the number of additions made, all of which are POV and crap. With all due respect to Polaris, Mattisse and Redthoreau, all of whom are apparently great editors, comprehensiveness is far more important than size. Guevara's illustrious life should be written comprehensively, regardless of how long it would be. Only after this new, short version was established, and as you call it, "weeks of edits", the tags were added in. Isn't it a shame that such an amazing article is being demoted in front of your face? Not weeks, months and even years of work have gone into that. And when one editor wants to help and restore the well written, well referenced, comprehensive version, it's being reverted? Look at the FAR, the remove votes are coming now because of that. I'm shocked! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shahid, A few things as facts are important to prevent misunderstanding: (1) The article was not promoted at 138 K --- the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006 which was probably around 60 K or so. (2) The 138 K was the version that was reported for a FA review ---> Feb 23, 08 Version. (3) Compare that with the current version WHICH HAS gone through extensive edits over the past month March 28, 08. I would contend the current version is of BETTER quality than the March 10, 2006 version which recieved FA status. Red thoreau  (talk TR 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Blofeld of SPECTRE and Shahid, thanks for your comments. It would be helpful if you would state specifically which words and sentences are problematic in your opinion, and why. For the lead, I've set up a section of this talk page where I've shown in detail how various versions of this article differ.  It would be helpful if you would put comments in that section under each numbered point, as for example Redthoreau has done for points 4, 10 and 11.  I'd like to see as many people as possible commenting on each specific difference between the versions.  The same goes for other sections of the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag removed without discussion
Have I missed the discussion somewhere? Have the POV problems been taken care of to everyone's satisfaction? Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was a single purpose account making that one edit to remove the POV so I reverted it.  Mattisse  (Talk) 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT and Castro's rise
The crucial role played by the Western (American) press, esp. the NYT and esp. Herbert Matthews is vastly underplayed here. Herbert Matthews really did make both Castro and Guevara, who were well aware of this, and manipulated his writing. See for example in the New York Times, 4 Jan. 1959 (p. 7):
 * 'Che' Guevara states: "I have never been a communist. Dictators always say that their enemies are communist..." [Conde, Yvonne M. (1999). Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Exodus of 14048 Cuban Children. New York: Routledge. Pages 5-7. My access to the LexisNexis news datbase only goes to 1969; may need to look at microfiche to verify this].
 * Matthews writes, "One thing must be said. This is an acknowledgement to an extraordinary young man, Fidel Castro. The American people wish him good fortune.."
 * New York Times Havana-based correspondent Ruby Hart Phillips wrote of the impact of Matthews' stories of 1957: "From that time on youths flocked to join the ranks of Castro's insurgents." Ling.Nut (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * LingNut, I understand that Matthews and the New York Times has become a convenient revisionist, and straw man “scapegoat” (especially amongst the current day far-right) for the failings of the US state department to prevent the rise of Castro and ultimately nuclear missiles 90 miles from Florida ... but the reality is not that simple. First to address your specific points:
 * That statement by Che is historically accurate (see Arbenz, Mosaddeq, later Allende and even Mandela etc). --- Also it is accurate in the sense that he never did refer to himself as a “communist”, and had never joined an official communist party. Guevara viewed himself as a “Marxist”, as he told Time Magazine when they did their Aug 8 1960 cover story on him (where he dawned the cover).


 * One needn't be a "flaming commie" to describe the actions of Fidel Castro during that time as "extraordinary". Landing on an island with less than 20 men alive against a force of 20,000 soldiers, and 3 years later coming out on top ... is by most accounts an "extraordinary" feat. History shows that many revolutionaries have attempted it ... but Fidel is one of the select few who has ever been successful doing it. Of note Ed Sullivan and former President Harry Truman also viewed Castro as the "George Washington of Cuba".
 * So is Phillips contending that scores of young Cubans decided to join Castro's and Che's guerrilla group after reading the NY times? Also this is an example of possible "correlation" but not necessarily "causation". "Yes she gave birth when it rained, but they necessarily are not connected". Just because young Cuban youth flocked to join the revolution at a time when Matthews was also writing positive press for the NYT, doesn't mean the two are connected. If all that was necessary was positive publicity in the NY Times to engender desire to join the military, I am sure the US military would have tried it a long time ago. Red thoreau  (talk TR 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with LingNut. I wrote elsewhere on this talkpage about this and gave references. I cannot find that entry of mine any longer (this talkpage is so huge and complicated) but I provided multiple sources from Jon Anderson, Anthony dePalma and others. That is why a contemporaneous article from Time (1960) is not a good source for facts at the time. I believe that it is accepted wisdom now the Castro was a master manipulator of the media and Che was an important component of this, rather like the earth is round. The BBC News agrees with this view, as does even the New York Times now and Matthews career suffered subsequently for his role in it. Mattisse  (Talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, If you are having trouble finding past statements try (Ctrl + F) and then type in a key word. As for contemporaneous articles I disagree, and find them extremely valuable, for an understanding of the situation at the time --- and not the politically motivated revisionism that occurs later. Of note as well, the lead merely mentions that Che was viewed as "Castro's Brain" during the revolution, which at the time was true. Moreover, please provide a link or source to where the BBC and New York Times now recognize Castro as a "master manipulator" of the media. Most inquiries to such views turn up FrontPageMag, WorldNet daily, or LewRockwell.com --- hardly bastions of objective and credible journalism. Red thoreau  (talk TR 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Modifying statements without noting it on talkpage so that is clear to readers that the response was to another statement
Rethoreau, I can not find the place where Coppertwig noted that you modified your statement I responded to substantially, in fact incorporating a large part of the text Coppertwig left on your talkpage into you own statement, thus making his words  seem like your original statement and  my post below yours a strange reaction from me. I just saw it on the watchlist only. It is not fair to the poster or the reader, in my opinion, to modify the post being responded to, without notifying the talk page reader that is the case.

Further, do you not think that if Coppertwig is going to supply text, essentially, he should supply it directly rather then via your talk page so it seems like your own? You have deleted his statement on your talk page now, so it is difficult to follow why this happened this way.

Per Coppertwig, Talk page guidelines should be followed, in my opinion Mattisse  (Talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I noted on the talk page summary that I modified my statement for more civility ... and the version you replied to was the modified version, not the original one. My minor edit came at ---> 16:58, 30 March 2008 Redthoreau m (97,527 bytes) (→first paragraph (first two paragraphs in some versions): minor word alterations of my own comment for more civility) - and your response came 32 minutes later: 17:30, 30 March 2008 Mattisse (98,328 bytes). This was in reference to a suggestion from Coppertwig to be more civil in my word choice. Coppertwig was LATER under the impression that your response occurred in reference to my original version, and thus added the mention of it, when in reality you responded to my modified version. Thus there was no need for the stipulation that my earlier words were changed, because those words which you responded to were the ones already there. Red thoreau  (talk TR 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section being discussed here is Talk:Che Guevara, near the bottom of that section but above a few other posts such as the quote from Cormier I posted. I find it quickly by using control-f on my browser to search for "propaganda machine".  here I post a note stating that the message had been modified. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Redthoreau, please remember that the vast majority of the readers do not see the edit summaries, or is my browser set up wrong or something? Is there a place where I am not looking as I read a page where the edit summariess how up for each posting are shown? The only way I know it to hunt through the history, which few readers are motivated to do. Please advise, as there are many things I do not know about. I would like to see edit summaries as I read down the page.   Mattisse  (Talk) 12:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied to Mattisse at User talk:Coppertwig. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of wikilinks
Here I've used a computer program to analyse the wikilinks in this article (version of 05:34, 30 March 2008), to help with responding to Ling.Nut's comment about easter egg links.

In the first section of that sandbox page, it lists the piped links, showing where they go. (On the left is what the reader sees; on the right is the page the reader ends up at.)

In the next section, it shows a count of how many times this article links to each page. For a guideline, see Manual of Style (links). For example, we have 5 links to Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro is a closely related subject, so 1 link is probably not enough, especially if Castro is mentioned in several sections of the article. Maybe 3 links would be better than 5, though. For most things, 1 link is enough.

In the third section, it lists links with colons in them, most of which are images, categories and interwikis, though there are a few other things in there. (We may not need this information for anything, but my program printed out all the links, so there they are.)

Re one of the piped links: Ling.Nut pointed out in the FAR that "capitalism" links to "anti-capitalism". I suggest that it might (possibly) be better to move the square brackets so as to include the whole phrase "insidious result of capitalism" within the square brackets if the link goes to "anti-capitalism". --Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I made shorter lists at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7. The first list is a list of piped links, showing only the ones I thought some people might think were problematic.  I deleted ones I thought looked obviously correct.  Some people might disagree about that and may prefer to look at the complete list at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox6. The second list on the Sandbox7 page shows how many links there are to each page.  In Sandbox7 I've deleted dates from this list, and I've deleted pages with only one link.
 * I looked through all the links (even the ones with only one link) and almost all of them (other than dates) look relevant to me. I suggest that we may not need links to French language, Kibibyte, Merchandising, interjection and Popular culture, and possibly not to icon. We may want a link to dysentery, however, which we don't have currently. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind about French language and Kibibyte; in context, I think those links are fine. French language is linked in the image caption where Guevara is talking to Sartre.  Kibibyte is linked in one of the footnotes or references sections where it tells the file size of a file to be downloaded, I think.
 * I suggest that the links to "anti-capitalism", "anti-imperialism", "proletarian internationalism" and "Che Guevara in popular culture" be left out of the article, or else placed in a "see also" section at the bottom of the page, since there is probably no phrase in the article close enough to the meaning of each of those to attach a link to.
 * I suggest that this link be removed: coup d'état backed by the Central Intelligence Agency ---> Operation PBSUCCESS since it's a link to a redirect to a page that's already linked to elsewhere in the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7 I've added a right-hand column with a suggested new approximate number of links to aim for, for example reducing Fidel Castro from 5 links down to about 3. Each page should perhaps only be linked at most once in a section (see the MOS link in my first post in this thread), and we need to think about how relevant the links are to this topic;  Fidel Castro is closely connected to the topic of Che Guevara, but Paris is not so should probably only have 1 link.  Comments on these numbers of links are welcome.  If there are no comments in a day or two I'll go ahead and reduce the numbers of links in the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request permission to edit article
The lead used of the word "would" is not encyclopedic in my opinion. Examples: MoS says to avoid extra wording. The "would" such as in the contexts describe above is just longer way of saying the same thing. I guess, according to the rules established above there needs to be a consensus, for any edits, so please list votes here. Sincerely,  Mattisse  (Talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Guevara would embark
 * his belief would lead him
 * Guerava would serve in may prominent
 * I agree with your take and believe that they could be removed. Red thoreau  (talk TR 06:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I'm taking a neutral position on any content issues, therefore as far as I'm concerned you can go ahead. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This not a content change, but a writing style change, per MoS.  Mattisse  (Talk) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I shouldn't have called it a content issue. I'm taking essentially a neutral position on all changes, including "other" changes such as grammar, MOS etc. as well as content issues.  For the "other" changes, I may deviate from neutrality just far enough to make suggestions and to edit, but plan to let others decide if anyone expresses an opinion about those "other" changes.  I may start taking a non-neutral position on things at some time in the future.
 * RobertG has edited the article to remove many instances of "would". The remaining uses of "would" in the article may be justifiable from the context, e.g. stating something that Guevara believed was going to happen. Is the article OK now in its use of the word "would" in your opinion, Mattisse?  (Can you use your browser search function to search for the word "would"?  If you want, I'll post here a list of the remaining sentences containing that word.) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Morph, icon, alpha-numeric
In this edit, Ling Nut changed "His ubiquitous image would also later morph into a countercultural alpha-numeric icon, utilized by youth and leftist-inspired-movements throughout the world." (the last sentence of the first paragraph) to "His portrait would later become a cultural icon representing youth and leftist-inspired counterculture sentiment around the world.", with edit summary "reword: "sentiment" not "movement"; "become" for "morph"; what's alpha-numeric about it? Why is ubiquitous wikilinked? Etc."

In this edit, Redthoreau restored the original sentence (except that "ubiquitous" is no longer wikilinked, and "image" is,) with edit summary "Restoring previous last sentence in paragraph1, "Image > Photo" & "Symbol" > "Icon" - the symbol itself is iconic, but not an icon".

Although I'm not taking a position as to which version is better, I'd like to see discussion on this talk page of the wording of this sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Lingnut's is much much better. I know that sentence would never get though the FAR process. However, that wording has been changed by me previously and Redthoreau returned his wording. I doubt he will let a change through now. I am responding to Coppertwig's post of 11:36, 31 March 2008 which is right above this post.   Mattisse  (Talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Showing the image's ubiquitous nature, the Maryland Institute College of Art called it
 * (Outdent) Rationale for current wording:

The V&A Museum also proclaimed it V&A: The story of an image Jonathan Green director of the UCR Museum of Photography has stated:

Comment: Thus I believe that the correct wording is 'image' over 'photo', and 'symbol' over 'icon'. Che himself is referred to as an 'icon', and his image is 'iconic', but not an 'icon' in itself. Also the reason I think this sentence is important at the start of the lead, is to off the bat separate the "man" Che Guevara ... from his now "iconic" image which can be found everywhere, and almost operates separate from the man himself. mentioned here Red thoreau (talk TR 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Redthoreau, for expressing reasons for the revert of this sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute reference to p. 628 in Anderson
The reference cited for this statement is Anderson p. 628: "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. During an interview with the British newspaper Daily Worker some weeks later, he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities." Anderson actually says on p. 628 that Fidel "suggested" to Che that he leave Cuba immediately and return to Africa. Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure who added that, and can't remember locating it in Anderson. I would say that if it can not be found or verified ... then remove it. Red thoreau  (talk TR 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute "Castro's brain" reference
The Time magazine article is a puff piece written at a time the Cuba revolution was fashionable, while Herbert Matthews was busy romanticizing the revolution.(See The Man Who Invented Fidel by Anthony dePalma as well as statements in Anderson.) To quote from that article: " [Che] is the most fascinating, and the most dangerous, member of the  triumvirate [of Fidel, Raul, and Che).]" Do we really think that today? If so, find some current references for the statement that Guevara was Castro's brain and the most dangerous of the three.  Mattisse  (Talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect your opinion of it as a "puff piece" is irrelevant. Also Herbert Matthews did not write for Time Magazine, and should not be used as the convenient scapegoat for the positive coverage Fidel received overall. Yes DePalma (a fellow NYT reporter) wrote a book on that ... very well ... but what makes him qualified to make those assertions ? (What sources does he rely on?). There are a plethora of books that say all sorts of "fawning" things about Guevara, but I doubt that you would recognize their mere existence, as definitive proof of their internal message. There are a myriad of reasons why Guevara could rightfully have been viewed as the most dangerous of the 3. He was the most "Marxist" (in some ways the only one), the least pragmatic, the most committed to overall "world revolution" and exporting guerrilla warfare, the most outspoken to the world community (see UN speech in 1964) etc. The burden of proof is on you, to display that the material in the Time piece is inaccurate, not the other way. There are mountains of corroborating evidence to suggest that the article is accurate and an important glimpse into the contemporary thinking of the day ... before the revisionists got their hands on things, for political manipulation (on both sides). Red thoreau  (talk TR 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is you should find a current reference if you are saying that is the current thinking. Taking something written almost 50 years ago to portray the current state of knowledge and beliefs in wrong, especially in the lead. The lead should not present the thinking of 50 years ago as if it is the present. Mattisse  (Talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do I state that is the current thinking ? The current thinking is all over the map, depending on ones ideological stance. But the FACT is that at the time ... Che was viewed/perceived as “Castro’s Brain”. You can add “Perceived at the time” to the sentence if you like. Nowadays ... he is viewed as everything from a revolutionary saint, to a Stalinist killer. And the most common attack against him of recent, by those aggrieved by the resurgence in his popularity, is to revise and attack Che’s “competence” and “overall effect” in the Cuban revolution. Seeing that the “butcher” epithet has really only caught wave in the Cuban exile community, the newest charge for Guevara’s detractors is to attack his overall influence, military skill etc. However, I have yet to find any objective/non-partisan research backing up such claims.  Red thoreau  (talk TR 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will add something to the lead that makes it clear that 50 years ago it was thought that.....etc.  Mattisse  (Talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sarcastic & immature tone you added has been reverted. I am willing to be flexible with the wording, but you should resist temptation to throw a "tantrum" and add wording that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. He is still perceived today as playing a pivotal role and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content and not on editors. O.K. you can revert and put the incorrect material back in the article but you cannot remove a tag unilaterally and arbitrarily. Thanks, Mattisse  (Talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact correction ... YOU removed the tag in your previous edit ... all I did was revert. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Good faith is easier to trust when the other editor is not rude and contemptuous towards disputes. "Incorrect" now that's comical. I have yet to see any information from you showing it to be so. You mentioned the title to a book … very good, will that be all? Everything there is "factually" correct actually ... according to the provided reference. Now an argument can be made over whether an contemporary or "revised" outlook from say 30 years later should be used ... but there is no doubt that at the time ... he was viewed as "Castro's Brain", and hence it is included there in quotes (displaying that as the reference's opinion). Red thoreau (talk TR 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the rules for editing this article?
Why is Redthoreau the only editor who reverts what others contribute to the article? What is the point of FAR if this article is not to be improved? Why is inaccurate information allowed to remain? Somebody please explain to me what the rules are regarding this article. Thanks,  Mattisse  (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sigh) Here we go again. I figured it would only be a matter of time. I am not the only editor who has reverted ... many have ... especially with vandalism - (which is what your last sarcastic tantrum in the lead was). You have yet to provide any contradictory information to the provided reference. NONE. Once you provide that, we can discuss the accuracy of Time Magazine's hypothesis and weigh the evidence. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, this article is being improved every day (see page history). However, your sole editorial opinion, is not the end all source of "improvement." Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, feel free to provide a Time (Retraction) for any of the material, as that is how "inaccurate" information is dealt with. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again I am asking you to comment on content and not on editors. What you have written above is a personal attack. You are not assuming good faith. Please stop. Mattisse  (Talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stating the facts is not a personal attack, nor is responding to your libelous claim that I am propagating inaccurate information. You have a long track record of attacking me and then trying to paint my responses to your attacks as "attacks" themselves. I WANT to only discuss Content. SHOW me some contradictory content for your assertions ... or STOP impugning my Wikipedic integrity by calling my information inaccurate. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying I am making a "libelous claim" is a personal attack. Please comment on content and not on the editor. Please stop making personal attacks.  Mattisse  (Talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
 * (outdent) I disagree. I don't view that as a personal attack, but a defense of myself against one. Accusing someone repeatedly of deliberately providing inaccurate information, I believe is an attack on someone's integrity. When you do it without providing corroborating proof, to me it becomes libelous. "Inaccurate" means "un-true" = Nothing I have posted is untrue, and it being 48 years old, also doesn't make it so. History leaves me skeptical, but it will continually be my hope, that in the future we can focus on editing and content, and not each other. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw that or I will template you again for personal attack. That is directly against personal attack policy. Thank you.   Mattisse  (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw what ? There are no personal attacks there. It is not enough to simply label everything "an attack" (although I realize that anyone sticking up for themselves against your barrage of baseless accusations, constitutes an 'attack') ... = they actually have to be one. I will match any template with my own, (as you have already been warned about false templating by admins). Red thoreau  (talk TR 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)