Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 7

Che Guevara's Last Words
I have just noticed that a short time ago a wikipedian entered a comment re CG's last words in an incorrect location here on the Talk page, so I am creating this as a new topic and will transfer his comment into it. Polaris999 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

HEYYYYYYY those arent che guevara´s final words!! NO WAYY!his last words in Spanish were "dejeme ponerme de pie!, y por favor sostenga la pistola fuertemente!.... usted esta por matar a un hombre!" that in Enlgish would be: "let me stand up... please hold the gun firmly... you are about to kill a man!". Anyone who has read about Che Guevara knows this... i hope it will be changed.... thanx felix


 * Your version sounds highly credible to me but please provide a source that meets Wikipedia standards as explained in WP:V and then make the change accompanied by the required source note and citation in the "References" section. Perhaps you did not notice that the version included here has a source note showing that it is from the book by Jon Lee Anderson (page 739, if you wish to verify it). -- Polaris999 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Serenese y apunte bien! Va usted a matar un hombre!" (Calm down and aims well! you are going to kill a man ..) According to la Higuera teacher. http://www.flickr.com/photos/frederico_mendes/14874024/in/set-279653/ Ericd 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the exact words may never be known, though all transcriptions seem to include something to the effect of "you are about to kill a man." But it isn't like there was a tape recorder running or a number of impartial witnesses. If there are significant citable variations, we should probably mention them in a footnote. - Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jmabel. I have been at work researching this. There is a significant preponderance of evidence in favor of the "Serénese y apunte bien! Usted va a matar un hombre!" version.  I want to check a few more sources, but if these concur I think that we can make the change. Also, it does appear that, upon realizing that he was about to be executed, Guevara had struggled to his feet with the comment, "I want to be standing for this."  Those, however, were not exactly his last words. -- Polaris999 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For felix's quote to be accurate "dejeme ponerme de pie!" Would translate to "Let me get to my feet." Throw 08:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Hours
At 17:27, 9 July 2006, User:Sniggity inserted the following two sentences into the "Capture and Execution" sub-section:
 * According to a program on the The History Channel, Félix Rodríguez briefly spoke with Che on the evening prior to his execution and informed Che that he was to be executed. After being told, there are reports from Rodriguez and a guard that Che turned white as a ghost and could barely speak a word.

There are some problems with this text. First, it is not properly referenced as per the WP:CITE criteria. When adding information to this featured article, please provide a source that meets Wikipedia standards as established in WP:V and then create:
 * (1) the required source note, and
 * (2) the corresponding citation in the "References" section.

Second, one point all sources seem to be in agreement about concerning Guevara's final hours is the fact that Félix Rodríguez arrived in La Higuera aboard a helicopter with Colonel Zenteno early on the morning of 09 October. There is no record of his having been in La Higuera and spoken with Guevara the evening before (see, for example, Taibo, Paco Ignacio II. Ernesto Guevara, también conocido como el Che, page 701). Guevara was executed at approximately 1:10 pm on 09 October, so he was not alive the evening of 09 October to be speaking with anyone. Therefore, in order for the sentence you have inserted to be correct (assuming that you heard it clearly) either Rodríguez has changed his story after all these years, or the History Channel misrepresented what he said. It is important to document which case applies if this sentence is going to be added to the article. Thank you -- Polaris999 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat
To my disappointment, no one has taken up the single most important issue for this article. I will repeat:

We need documentation on the statement attributed in this article to Guevara that had the nuclear missiles of the Cuban Missile Crisis been under Cuban rather than Soviet control, they (presumably meaning he and Castro) would have fired them against major US cities. No other aspect of this man's life is as important. If it is accurate, and he seriously favored the direct murder of millions in an act that would certainly have triggered all-out nuclear holocaust and the death of billions and a collapse of civilization, it is safe to say that history will eventually see him for what he must have been: a dangerous, malevolent lunatic. If it is not accurate, the debate will go on... I will be trying to ferret out sources on this, but my time and energy is severely limited due to illness. I urge others to find reliable references and link to or quote from them on this Talk page so we can craft a definitive paragraph on this point for the article.

Sorry for the repetition, but all these other issues are tiny compared to this. JDG 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly what kind of documentation are you seeking? (since this statement is already sourced in the article) -- Polaris999 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For starters, we should have a third party verification of the Daily Worker quote. Then some background for the comment and the leading theories on what he really meant (I'm sure there are a few). JDG 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you perhaps not familiar with the concept of the "beautiful death"? Maybe you will find the following to be of interest:


 * It is now known that Fidel Castro and his comrade Che Guevara were arguing in favor of the Russians using the missiles against the United States. They were ready for their martyrdom and the martyrdom of Cuba. But Anastas Mikoyan, in Cuba participating in the crisis on behalf of the Soviet Union, was opposed to any such "beautiful death." Castro, Khrushchev and Kennedy


 * Other sources include the now de-classified papers of Mikoyan himself, the article by James G. Blight and David A. Welch, Risking The Destruction of Nations: Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis for New and Aspiring Nuclear States, Security Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Summer 1995), pp. 811-850, and the books:


 * Carla Anne Robbins, The Cuban Threat (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983)
 * Yuri Pavlov, Soviet-Cuban Alliance: 1959-1991 (Miami: University of Miami Iberian Studies Institute; 2nd edition, February 1996) (Pavlov was the Director of Latin America in the USSR Foreign Ministry at the time of the Missile Crisis.)
 * James G. Blight and David A. Welch. Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993).
 * Laurence Chang and Peter Kornbluh, eds. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 (New York, W.W. Norton,1998; revised edition, 200?).
 * A.I. Gribkov, editor.On the Brink of the Nuclear Abyss (Moscow: Gregory Page, 1993)


 * Fidel Castro's 26 October 1962 letter to Khruschev is of particular importance because in it he calls on the Soviet leadership to launch a first-strike nuclear war against the USA if Cuba were invaded. Various Kremlin insiders have reported that it was after reading this letter that a shaken Khruschev decided upon the immediate withdrawal of the nuclear missiles from Cuba. (Probably it is no coincidence that the day after sending this letter to Khruschev, Castro ordered the shooting down of a U-2 plane that was flying over Cuba -- an act which he probably expected would precipitate a U.S. attack on Cuba; indeed, such a response was called for by Kennedy's military advisors, but he chose to ignore their counsel.)


 * Lest there be any doubt about Fidel Castro's intentions in this regard, the following is an excerpt from his statement to the 1992 conference concerning the Missile Crisis which he made in response to a query from Robert McNamara:


 * Now, we started from the assumption that if there was an invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt. We were certain of that ... we would be forced to pay the price, that we would disappear.... Would I have been ready to use nuclear weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons.…  The Cuban Missile Crisis by Robert McNamara


 * Finally, here is a quote from Che in his essay Táctica y Estrategia de la Revolución Latinoamericana which Cuba did not publish until after his death (specifically, on 6 October 1968 in the armed forces' magazine "Verde Olivo", page 16.):


 * El peligro mayor que entraña la Revolución cubana está en su ejemplo, en su divulgación revolucionaria, en que el Gobierno ha podido elevar el temple de este pueblo, dirigido por un líder de alcance mundial, a alturas pocas veces vistas en la historia. Es el ejemplo escalofriante de un pueblo que está dispuesto a inmolarse atómicamente para que sus cenizas sirvan de cimiento a las sociedades nuevas y que, cuando se hace, sin consultarlo, un pacto por el cual se retiran los cohetes atómicos, no suspira de alivio, no da gracias por la tregua; salta a la palestra para dar su voz propia y única; su posición combatiente, propia y única, y más lejos, su decisión de lucha, aun cuando fuera solo, contra todos los peligros y contra la mismísima amenaza atómica del imperialismo yanqui.


 * Perhaps after consulting these and other relevant works you, or some other wikipedian, will decide to expand the paragraph in question. (Should you wish to read my thoughts on the subject, please see Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 4:Che - a humanitarian?.) -- Polaris999 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why this is an overwhelmingly notable issue. I would have thought most politicians from any country would state, if asked, that they would fire nuclear missiles to defend their country from invasion. That's exactly what they are produced for. Surely the act of lunacy would have been the initial invasion of a country in posession of nuclear missiles. Canderra 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, it might be nice to track down the particular citation in the Daily Worker. Right now, the quote trails off oddly in the footnote "…clearly a man of great intelligence though I thought he was crackers from the way he went on about the." I believe only James Joyce is allowed to end a sentence with "the". - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jmabel, for pointing out that the final word had been cut off the end of that sentence. Looking back over the article's history, I discovered that this act of vandalism had occurred yesterday, i.e. at 04:35, 26 July 2006, perpetrated by User:68.88.234.65. I'm very glad that your sharp eyes caught it, and I have now restored the missing word which was "missiles". -- Polaris999 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see here is that the Wikipedia version claims that Che said he would attack major US cities, while the citation itself says nothing about cities. Where is the quote about attacking major cities? If someone has it, please post a link or copy the citation with respective quote. BBUCommander


 * "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression. But we haven't got them, so we shall fight with what we've got."  Source: Jorge Castaňeda, Che Guevara: Compañero, p. 231. -- Polaris999 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Awfully long lead section
Polaris asked me to give my impression of recent changes to the article. I don't have the focus to really give this right now, but one thing leaps out: the lead section has become much longer than is normal for a biography, even of a major figure with a complicated life. For examples of other featured biographies of political figures, consider Attila the Hun, Claudius Joan of Arc, (all much shorter); Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu (somewhat shorter); Mahatma Ghandi is the only other one I see that is about this long. I'm sure that pretty much everything there is echoed below; I'm almost certain it could be said more succinctly in the lead, and perhaps some of it omitted from the lead, but I don't have the energy to take it on right now. - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved User:Kwertii's re-write of the lead section over here to the Talk page so that other editors can comment on it and a consensus can be reached as to whether it should replace the existing lead section which has been part of the Che Guevara article since shortly before it was promoted to FA status. According to Wikipedia:The perfect article, "A perfect Wikipedia article ... starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail."


 * Please enter your comments about the proposed changes below the text. Thank you. -- Polaris999 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by User:Kwertii:
 * As for the length, I believe that a good introduction should catch all the highlights of a major figure's life; a biography-in-a-nutshell that will suggest useful sections within the body of the article that one can consult for further information on a topic of particular interest to the reader, and this is hardly one of only a few articles on Wikipedia that adopts that style. I like intros in the style of Mahatma Ghandi, George Washington, and Napoleon much better than the terse style of Claudius or Vladimir Lenin. The latter read more like a biographical dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article. They tell the reader very little that they did not already know before consulting the article. That's a good first paragraph for an introductory section in an article; it is not so good as the entire introduction. A reader interested in a figure generally at e.g. Vladimir Lenin is forced to spend a long time churning through the entire detailed article body just to know the high points of the figure's life. The casual reader, in all likelihood, is not actually be interested in knowing what high school the figure went to or exactly what years they spent in a certain job, and a good intro should not require them to wade through that sort of thing just to learn the broad outlines of their life: not merely what they did in life in condensed form, but also the general outlines of why and how. An intro should give the casual reader something more than merely "Marxist revolutionary known for his part in the Cuban Revolution after travelling on a motorcycle across South America while he was at university and seeing poor people; has a famous photograph."


 * As for the reversion, there is no policy requiring one to discuss major edits on Talk before implementing them; nor is there any standard practice of consulting previous authors before editing "their" pages; nor are Featured Articles treated any differently than any other articles in terms of editing policy. Quite the contrary, actually (e.g. Editing policy; Ownership of articles; Be bold in updating pages, Category:Wikipedia featured content, among others.) If there is something factually inaccurate or POV in what I wrote, by all means discuss it here and/or change it. As far as I can tell, there is nothing factually or POVly wrong with my edits (that I am aware of), and I see no legitimate grounds for your reversion, Polaris999. Simply making a large edit without letting other editors comment on it first is not generally considered grounds for reversion; in fact, this flies in the face of standard practice on Wikipedia. I am therefore restoring my edit. Kwertii 03:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An excerpt about the lead section from Manual of Style (biographies):


 * An excerpt about the lead section from Featured article advice:


 * The two preceding excerpts were posted into this discussion topic by Polaris999 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Comments by User:Polaris999:
 * The following are the explanations of changes I have made to the lead section written by User:Kwertii as it appears in the article. He restored his version of the lead section into the article shortly after I had posted it here for discussion because, as he explains in his comment above, he does not consider it necessary to discuss changes or reach consensus about them. (To see the actual changes I made, please refer to the article's History page.) The changes I made have not addressed the matter of the length of the lead section since I only removed one sentence, i.e. the last sentence of the first paragraph of his re-write of said section, which I removed because (as noted below) that sentence repeated information contained in the 6th paragraph of the same section.
 * (correction: the "u" in Raul is accented)
 * (removing sentence that repeats what is said in the (now) 6th paragraph of this section; this point doesn't need to be made twice in this section)
 * (he travelled directly from Guatemala to Mexico which are neighboring countries)
 * (correcting naming errors: nickname or first name should not be used to refer to the subject of the biography -- see WP:Manual of Style (biographies) #Subsequent uses of names)
 * (naming error -- Guzmán is the matronymic of this individual, his surname is Arbenz)
 * (removing "Che" from first appearance of name: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) Pseudonyms, stage names and common names)
 * (Military rank is not supposed to be included in the lead sentence. Look at Eisenhower, Rommel, etc.)
 * (removed title "Dr." -- use of academic titles in lead paragraph and elsewhere is deprecated: pls see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles)
 * -- Polaris999

These changes seem perfectly reasonable to me. Kwertii 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Some general problems?
I'm coming at this from the persective of someone who knows little about the subject, I was reading to learn and noticed a few things. In the "Guatemala" section, a woman "Hilda Gadea" is introduced as Che's main political contact. The next reference is to Che selling her jewelry, it isn't until later in the "Cuba" section that they are noted as being in a relationship. The sentence directly after the jewelry selling is "Then, on May 15, 1954, a shipment of high-quality Skoda infantry and light artillery weapons sent from Communist Czechoslovakia for the Arbenz Government arrived in Puerto Barrios aboard the Swedish ship Alfhem.", but there is no clear reference as to why this is particulary important to the article, and the paragraph goes on talking about tonnage of this shipment and Che going to get a new Visa. I can kind of connect the dots, but it seems to me a bit confusing the way it is written.--Trees4est 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "Guatemala" section needs cleanup. The editor who "created" it doesn't seem to be active on this article any more, so I guess that someone else needs to undertake the task.  Volunteers? -- Polaris999 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Polaris, do I take it from that remark that you are not volunteering? On the whole, I've been impressed with your consistently knowledgable and even-handed treatment of this controversial figure. - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, thank you very much for your words of encouragement, but I was thinking it would be good if someone else were to "take a turn". Among other things, I find it confusing that (as you remark below in the topic "Size again") many readers/editors have been complaining that the article is too long, but then when someone more than doubles the length of the lead section by merely repeating information that is already included elsewhere in the article, neither these people, nor anyone else, seems to object. I do not know how to interpret this seeming contradiction and until (unless) I understand it, I do not think that I will be doing much work on this article. -- Polaris999 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have undertaken a major re-write of the Guatemala section in an attempt to address the issues mentioned above but did not want to use the actual Che Guevara article as my "scratchpad". I therefore created a sandbox for this purpose at Talk:Che_Guevara/Sandbox/Guatemala. I would appreciate feedback as to whether my draft should replace the existing section, or whether it should be further improved (and how), and/or other suggestions.  Thank you -- Polaris999 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As twenty-four hours have passed without any comments concerning the re-write, I have moved it into the main article so editors can modify it there if they wish, or revert it if they think the previous version was better. -- Polaris999 21:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Size again
I read in this talk page a notice regarding the size of the article (80KB at the time). The article is now 96KB, that's almost THREE times the recommended article size. My head hurts from reading. --Iafrate 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Got my facts wrong.. it's "only" 94KB. I apologize. --Iafrate 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Other than shortening the introduction (which seems to be an unpopular proposal), it's really hard to imagine what to cut. This has become (with the inevitable limitiation of successfully "digesting" new contributions) a really good piece on Guevara. Iafrate, any concrete suggestions for trimming? - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to admit. Just mentioning it's size problems, and not proposing solutions to shorten the article without lowering the quality, was too easy.... shame on me... but I still think the article is too long, making it less readable. If work and wife allows me, I'll get back on saturday or sunday with a list of proposed actions for shortening, for all here to discuss. Cheers. --Iafrate 12:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the information of anyone who may be interested, the "readable prose" in this article is only 64 KB per a count I did at 04:25, 18 August 2006. According to Article size, For stylistic purposes, only the main body of prose[1] (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose.


 * [1]Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: external links, further reading, references, footnotes, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting.


 * Source: Article size


 * Polaris999 04:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the size of the article is fine. Though I do prefer the earlier more concise introduction.--Zleitzen 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, the main body is 64 KB, but that is still twice the recommended size. So I still feel the article is too long, and it is my opinion, that the length makes it hard to read from beginning to end. As I stated earlier, I will post suggestions for shortening later, but I'll add an example of what I feel is unnecessary information in the article: "Guevara learned chess from his father and began participating in local tournaments by the age of 12.[5]" It might be sourced, but I think it's irrelevant for the article. --Iafrate 06:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Iafrate, as far as I am concerned you can strip the article down to nothing. It might be nice if enough of it could be left, and in decent enough condition, so that it could maintain its "Featured Article" status, but, in the end, that really doesn't matter either, does it? -- Polaris999 08:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was only trying to improve the quality of the article. That was my only concern. No article is perfect, but I get the feeling from the above statement, that you want me to leave the article alone. So I will. Have a nice weekend. --Iafrate 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to come into this discussion late, but I really do believe the earlier concise introduction was better. I don't think an article of 64KB is an issue at all, forget the auto response claiming a recommended size - there are many featured articles that are far longer than this one (this is actually quite a short article considering the subject matter). And please be extremely cautious before attempting to remove material from a featured article! --Zleitzen 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been BOLD and replaced the intro with the shorter featured article verison. If anyone has an issue with that, blame me!--Zleitzen 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Z: you might concentrate your efforts on content rather than style, as it is this article quite biased. For example it does not even full admit Guevara's role as executioner, yet "cries like a baby" when talking about his death. El Jigue 8-23-06


 * El Jigue, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a fascist propaganda-outlet. If you want that, go find yourself some of the original Cuban exiles (there must be some of them left), you know, the Batista-fans. There you can excrete your junk all you like, not here. 82.176.194.151 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that, unless he is lying to us (which I don't think he is) El Jigue fought against Batista, that remark is rather out of line. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed as far as I know and what he has allowed us to know, El Jigue is one of a significant number of Cubans who opposed both Batista and Castro/Guevara. As many of the leaders of the anti-Castro opposition such as Manuel Ray opposed Batista. Cuban exiles are by no means synonymous with support of Batista. Far from it in fact. I just wish El Jigue would contribute more to correcting the historical aspects of wikipedia as his knowledge is second to none here.--Zleitzen 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)