Talk:Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Cuba
 Cuba Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:

Contents

[edit] State of article

I don't entirely agree with the decision to move this to a separate article—I think there other parts of the Che Guevara article that would have been better to abstract, and that this should not have been done without discussion—but, since it was done, I've done my best to fill in the rest of the apparatus of an article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waldron / Hartmann

Copied from User talk:Polaris999:

Could I ask you to have a good look at Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution? All I really did there was to make sure its references were moved with it. But the Lamar Waldron / Thom Hartmann stuff strikes me as just weird. (Hartmann is so hit-or-miss...) I simply don't know enough about these weird little conspiracy theories to address them. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel -- As far as I am concerned, that Hartmann/Waldron stuff is simply outrageous. I don't know if you ever happened to see my comment on the Discussion page, in response to one of yours, as I recall, shortly after this nonsense first appeared in the Che article in which I mused whether, if someone wrote a book saying that, for example, Che Guevara was an extraterrestrial, it would be acceptable for such a bizarre theory to be included in the Wiki article about him. I asked then for guidance about Wiki standards that might indicate how to address this matter, but no one replied to my query. In the current milieu where anyone with a word processing program can self-publish a book, I think that this is an issue that needs to be clarified because the existing Wiki standard appears to be that if you can cite a page in a book -- any book -- where the "information" (or, as in this case, disinformation) appears, it can be included in Wiki, which is really troublesome and an invitation to abuse. In this particular case, everything suggests that the individual who inserted those strange paragraphs into the Che article did so in a blatant attempt to publicize the book, so that is another reason why they should be removed. Should you decide to rv this section to the version you had completed at 19:40, 21 November 2005 -- just before the objectionable material was inserted -- I would support your decision 100%. Polaris999 05:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[end copied text]

I am going to reduce this to a short mention in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing cites in text and then demanding them again

By now you all know I am quite unhappy with the content and the "editing" in Wikipedia. Most of you probably have guessed that among the reasons that I contribute is to test polish parts of my own book of first hand experience, and because it aids my intent to write a scholarly article on the uses of Wikipedia editing techniques to censor the internet in countries without free "press." Still it seems a little odd, but probably useful for my article on such, to constantly delete my citations in text and then re-demand them. I find this a most interesting technique for censorship El Jigüey 12-28-05

I am the person who requested citation here. To the best of my knowledge, I have never removed your citations, and certainly have not done so intentionally. If you are going to accuse me of such a thing, indicate the edit where I removed it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If, as you state, it is your "intent to write a scholarly article on the uses of Wikipedia editing techniques", it would no doubt be an excellent idea for you to learn how to use Wikipedia citation techniques yourself. Moreover, were you to do so, the rest of us wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to get your references into an accepted format -- in fact, we wouldn't have to touch them at all, so you would no longer have to worry about their being modified, moved about, etc. Polaris999 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

JMabel Xe xe If you read what I wrote carefully you will see I never charged you specifically with the removal of the cites. Polaris frankly I care more about the citation itself rather than what particular format is used; in other words in my view content and accuracy is far more important than format. Must I presume you differ. However, it you read my comments again, you will see that my objection is not based on format (that concern I leave for mere lowly graduate students fighting for academic "browny points", because citation format differs in each field of study, and often varies with journal or publisher). The far more critical point is that the effect of these kinds of delitions equates to censorship. El Jigüe 12-29-05

  • Then please don't chide me for asking for citations. How was I to know you had at some point provided them and someone else removed them? If you would put in your citations in a manner resembling what is in the rest of the article, (1) you would probably fend off the "lowly" (and you call Polaris pompous?) people who are deleting your citations and (2) you'd spare me a bunch of copy editing, because while I will do it, it's hardly my favorite task; ignoring the style of a collective article you are adding to is like leaving it to other people to haul out your garbage. --- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I get your point and from now on will not bother to put any of your references into standard Wiki format. Presumably someone else will come along and delete them because Wiki guidelines call for references/footnotes attached to a given article to be done in the same style that has already been established on that page, which in this case, as you may have noticed, is the ref/note format. Polaris999 01:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Xe xe Such pomposity and bureaucratic mindset where form trumps content. In addition it is clear that you have set up yet another excuse for censorship. Well then thanks for more grist for my mill. xe xe El Jigüe 12-29-05


For reference purposes, I am posting here the relevant excerpt from Wikipedia:Citing sources:

"If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.

"If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor.

"If you are unclear as to which system or style to use, remember: the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source. If necessary, put this information in the talk page, or in a comment on the main page, and ask others how to format it correctly for that article."

Polaris999 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The Che was psychopath

I does not matter how you slice it the Che was a psychopath. He killed many on his own side, because they deviated from his marxoid philosophy, and he did not feel a thing about it. In those days even such as Universo Sanchez could not do that, years later Universo went off the deep end and killed a commisar because he denied him a milk ration.

The Che killed a friend of mine who was fellow rebel, and many more and almost collapsed the fight against Batista, because as much as half the rebel force left in disgust.

The Che refused to support Daniel in “La Ofesiva’ and let him bleed to death. Read Huber Mato’s, Alarcon’s and Jon Anderson’s books.

Finally the Che was so full of his own stuff that he ridiculed Castro in front of the USSR Ambassador, saying something to the effect ‘that there was no marxist in the Sierra who would dare assault attack a machine gun nest.’ One notices that the Che, not even in Ubero where he had a chance to do it, never did that either because it is very stupid and very lethal. Now Castro’s own record for bravery is suspect thus Castro, who is no saint had to rid himself of the Che.

Do not argue with me I was thereabouts and very luckily to say out of reach of the Che, thank G-d El Jigüe 1/26/06


Unless you're a psychologist, I don't think you're qualified to make that conclusion. RideABicycle 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Very droll comment there, Bicycle. If the above is true, I think this user is more than "qualified" to draw conclusions about Guevara the person.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workers Intellectuals and Peasants is code for Communists

The phrasing "Workers Intellectuals and Peasants" is marxoid code for communists, to insert that nonsense into this article is absurd and anachronistic. The overt Cuban communist party (PSP) only supported Castro after the middle of 1958 (previously they had supported Batista). With the notable exception of the PSP, the support for Castro, who said repeatedly he was not a communist, was general. El Jigüe 1/27/06

[edit] Unencyclopedic attack piece

The Psychological profile section reads like an unencyclopedic attack piece. I can only guess that someone is taking advantage of this having been split out from the main Che Guevara article to write things that would never be tolerated in that more-watched article, and that are basically off-topic for this one. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this section should be removed, completely rewritten and then placed in the main Che Guevara article. I have read many real Psychological Profiles in my time and havn't come across many which are as unscientific and blatently POV orientated.
I would have thought a Psychological Profile is more suited to the main Che Guevera also, otherwise it would have to be restricted simply to the psychology he exhibited during the Cuban Revolution. Canderra 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the assessment by Jmabel and second the suggestion by Canderra that this sub-article should be "removed, completely rewritten and then placed in the main Che Guevara article". Polaris999 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've cut it. If someone sees something salvageable for the main article, go for it. As I said, my problem was not only with its location but its content, so I am not restoring.

Psychological profile
To most biographers Ernesto “Che” Guevara is not a common man. To the extreme left, he is “El Hombre Nuevo” (The new man) and hagiographies are written to this effect e.g. [1]. To some he is extraordinary. Fidel Canelón, Profesor of Historic thought of the Central University defines [2] “El Hombre Nuevo” as a creature necessary to bring about the construction of Communism, one who knows how to do the work of bringing about the social well being: “hacer un trabajo de bienestar social.” This idea is not new, Stalinists once defined the “New Man” as to be “altruist in spirit, communal in outlook, sacrificial in his labour for the common good, boundless in his fight for world revolution” [3]. However to do this “El Hombre Nuevo” had to kill, without regret or hesitation [4].
All biographers agree that Ernest Guevara killed readily. Fidel Castro was trained to kill in the Emilio Tró action group (Ros, 2003) but there is no such record of that kind of initiation in the case of Guevara.
It is possible that this “ability” arose from the trauma of the fearful near death horror of his asthma. Marcelo Gioffré › (English translation at ›) places cites fellow rebel Humberto Vázquez Viaña in stating that Guevara found relief from his asthma in the combat generated adrenalin. Feldman (2003) suggests defects of memory and recall contribute to the willingness to do such political murder.
A harbinger of who young Guevara will become is the passage in the "Motorcycle Diaries" which describes how "Che wakes in the middle of the night and, mistaking his hosts' beloved pet Alsation for a vicious Chilean Puma, shoots the poor creature dead [5]"
Disputed
The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed.
The dispute is about citing an amazon customer's review as a source for Wikipedia. (Also, this sentence contains an incorrect statement.).
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
This theme, the symbolic murder of innocence, is to be repeated in Cuba, when the Che kills a puppy in the Sierra Maestra. What made him this way is not really known. What is certain is that by 1959 the Che Guevara was willing to kill even the youngest of his opponents, for rationales that seem absurdly petty to those educated in ‘western norms.” The Che’s detractors narrate an execution of a 14 year old for trying to defend his father [6].
When one reads certain authors such as Bravo (2005), James, (2001), Fontanova (2005), and Ros (2002) a pathological image arises. Guevara is a man who writes to his father: “I’d like to confess, papa’, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.” (Bravo, 2005).

[End deleted material]

[edit] Another attack piece

Again a section has been added that seems to be nothing more than an attack on Guevara: Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution#Guevara's military tactics. I have copy-edited it, and asked for citation for a few statements that seem particularly to demand it, but on the whole I'm out of my depth here, because I know little about the actual combat of the Cuban Revolution. However, it strikes me as unlikely the Guevara would have the reputation he has if he were nothing but a devious, incompetent coward; indeed, it is hard to understand why the devious, incompetent coward portrayed here would have sought more opportunities to place himself in combat. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the serious problems you mention, the "Guevara’s military tactics" section of this article suffers from the fact that it is written in very poor English. I have done my best to correct the spelling mistakes and, where possible, to re-structure the sentences that were most convoluted and/or fragmented, but these are only superficial measures. I have tagged one particular paragraph where I am unable to figure out what the writer was trying to say (example: did Guevara leave his men in order that they would do the ambush, or did he leave his men in order to do the ambush himself?) However, this writer does not seem to respond to tags, so I do not know what the solution will be ...
Moreover, the "Notes" section of this article is chaotic, with most of the problems originating in the "Guevara’s military tactics" section, and since I had no part in writing any of this highly questionable material, I am unable to figure out which source belongs with which statement and, as a result, cannot correct this situation.Polaris999 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have worked on the notes for the sections that I did have some part in writing, i.e. not including the section "Guevara's military tactics" where I have left the notes exactly as the editor who wrote that section created them. After going through all of the other notes one by one, I have discovered that there is one note for which I can find no "attachment" in the text. I am going to append it here so that if someone knows to which sentence it is supposed to be attached, s/he can kindly inform me:
#^  Feldman, Allen 2003 Political Terror and the Technologies of Memory: Excuse, Sacrifice, Commodification, and Actuarial Moralities. Radical History Review 85, 58-73
Polaris999 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Update: I have just discovered that the "orphaned note" belonged to the section removed by Jmabel (see above); therefore, it is no longer needed and I am deleting it. Polaris999 21:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Myciconia has removed my NPOV-sect tag saying "rmv template, been there for long enough". Myciconia: The section has not magically become less POV through neglect. I put up a tag like that as a way to let someone fix the problems rather than my just clobbering their material. But if you won't accept the NPOV tag, then I will simply remove the material that I found objectionable. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now {{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Che_Guevara%27s_involvement_in_the_Cuban_Revolution&diff=78014458&oldid=77593541 removed the section}}. Perhaps that is what I should have done in the first place. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to respond

Two parts of this article have been tagged for a number of days now. Since there has been no response to the tags, I will now proceed to remove the tagged material from the article and place it here:

1. Two of these columns, those of Che and of Camilo Cienfuegos got through [11], while elements of Jaime Vega's column (22 ambushed 11 wounded executed at Pino 3) were wiped out.

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, the preceding sentence requires cleanup to improve its clarity and syntax. This article has been tagged since 30 March 2006.


2. In the Buey Valley much of the action and capture of weapons can be attributed to the Mora Brothers. In April 1958, during Che’s last encounter with his feared enemy Sánchez Mosquera, which occurred near Santa Rosa, Buey Arriba, Guevara left his men to ambush Mosquera’s troops who were moving along a path on the east bank of the upper Buey River at very close range from beneath the cover of a grass covered bank on the east side. Guevara supporters infer that Che had taken this position to snipe at Mosquera. However, this rationale does not seem accurate because with exceptions (see above) BAR is usually a two-man crew-served weapon. Guevara usually carried shorter range weapons such as 9 mm Madsen submachine guns, at this time a 9 mm Beretta submachine gun.

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, the preceding paragraph requires cleanup to improve its clarity and syntax. This article has been tagged since 29 March 2006.

In addition, El Che admits running away [1], [2]. However, Guevara’s men held firm, and came out of hiding, firing at the Batista’s who were standing to fire in order to clear the long guinea grass at the distant hill side where Che was running away. Thus, despite the departure of their leader, the rebels managed to cause casualties. Mosquera, it is said[citation needed], took rapid refuge in a nearby abandoned latrine.

Polaris999 20:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executions

I have a ref here for political executions immediately after the revolution - which I believe would improve on the present uncited estimate on the page. I tried to put this in but was bamboozled by the citation style : Please help! Latin American historian Thomas E Skidmore, assessed that there had been 550 executions in the first six months of 1959.[1]--Zleitzen 01:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Minor Atrocities of the Twentieth Century Full Source list compiled by the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century


Hello User:Zleitzen. I decided to go back to the Skidmore book as the source since it is more authoritative than the website. Please take a look at what I did and see if it is what you had in mind; if not please modify it ad libitum. Many thanks -- Polaris999 19:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Polaris. --Zleitzen 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, Zleitzen. I just found the paragraph in the Skidmore book from which the information you cite originally came, and I have included it in the source note. That was a good lead, it's great to finally have a credible source for one of the estimates! -- Polaris999 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role in the Missile crisis

The article states in the intro that Guevara played a key role in the Missile crisis. Was this the case?

I consider this statement to be accurate. He was a strong proponent of their introduction, but during his visit to the USSR (with Raúl) had a major confrontation with Khruschev owing to the fact that he (Guevara) was convinced that the US government would detect the introduction of the missiles into Cuba before they were fully installed. He therefore tried to persuade Khruschev to make a public announcement about the fact that the USSR was going to position the nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba before they were installed. He argued his case with great conviction and at considerable length. Khruschev, however, ridiculed the idea that the US would detect them before they were ready for combat use and, when Guevara continued to express concern about it, became exasperated with him and made a statement to the effect of "Leave that to me!". Guevara then asked him exactly what he would do if the Americans did discover the missiles before they were fully operational, to which Khruschev replied, "I'll send in the Baltic Fleet". Although Guevara considered that this reply was "posturing", he and the rest of the Cuban leadership were so eager to have the missiles on Cuban territory that before the end of their stay in the USSR both he and Raúl agreed to their installation without a prior public declaration of intent.
Polaris999 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I was more inclined to see Guevara as a marginal figure in the heat of the missile crisis - even Raul and Fidel were swept along by events somewhat. But your analysis is more than sufficient for me. Thanks Polaris.--Zleitzen 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I just changed "key" in the sentence in question to "important" because the lead sentence of the same paragraph contains the word "key". I think that "key" is probably the more accurate adjective, but find the word's repetition in such close proximity grating. Perhaps you could think of a better substitute than "important"? Or perhaps we could change the "key" that appears in the first sentence of the intro paragraph? Or, best of all, perhaps you might look at the intro paragraph and polish it a bit? (the person who wrote this section did so on the fly and no one has ever touched it up ... ) Thank you -- Polaris999 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Zleitzen. I just read your new, concise intro and like it very much. My only suggestion would be that it might include a mention of his role as #1 proponent and supporter of Cuba's activities aimed at bringing down Latin American governments it didn't like ... ~~
Thanks Polaris. I stripped the detail right down, perhaps with the intention of seeing it built back up with some care. I felt the previous intro was mentioning some key things, yet not others, and asked a few questions that couldn't really be resolved in an intro. You're right that Guevara's role abroad should be mentioned though.--Zleitzen 01:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatsmore a following sentence is sourced to Carlos Bringuier. Is this the same Carlos Bringuier that was appointed head propagandist for an extreme right wing organisation in New Orleans in the early 60's? In our source, Bringuier goes on to call Hugo Chavez a monkey, describes how Guevara went to Africa to "kill blacks" and so on. Is this source really necessary?--Zleitzen 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The following strikes me as apropos:
===Self-published sources (online and paper)===
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
But, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth
It all seems to come down to the question of whether or not the source cited can be considered a reliable one or not ... Who decides?
Polaris999 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Bringuier citation is used to show the debate surrounding Guevara's effectiveness. Whether he succeeded or failed in his ventures and so on. The debate certainly exists, thus I'll find more academic pieces to source this to. The Bringuier piece just doesn't do it for me - it ends with the author talking about how his late father would vomit!--Zleitzen 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just read: Guevara, disillusioned with the increasing Soviet presence in Cuba, was a would-be participant in the planned, but unimplemented, U.S.-sponsored coup attempt against Castro.. Good grief! Thankfully we state "there is no indication that scholars give credence to their views". I would be inclined to side with the scholars, go the whole way and remove that bizarre conclusion from the article.--Zleitzen 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zleitzen. Re "remove that bizarre ...": Those were, and are, my sentiments exactly. I believe that I removed it at one time but someone inexplicably brought it back in. Perhaps you would like to do the honors this time? -- Polaris999 20:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it as a wild and incredible claim, Polaris. I don't know where my removal stands within policy - but I feel that even my act of reading it was giving it undue weight. --Zleitzen 21:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citation style

With the present citation style, how does one insert a citation early in the article - but keep the footnotes in some kind of chronological order?--Zleitzen 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zleitzen. As you have observed, the reference style in this article is an abomination. If you're wondering how it got that way, please read the topics Removing cites, etc. and Another attack piece above. The problem with the source notes here dates from the time when the "nucleus" of this article was part of the CG main article; then Messedrocker created this "child article" by transferring part of the text from the main article over here. Jmabel and I did our best to standardize the notes, but this took place before the introduction of the new <ref></ref> system and a chaotic situation was soon created by the activities of certain "non-cooperating" editors who inserted footnotes in every format imaginable, or in no format at all. BTW the source notes for the main article were originally also in this arcane format, but at a certain point I decided to manually convert them all to the <ref></ref> system (which turned out to be a very unpleasant and time-consuming task).
The ideal solution for the problem here -- and probably the only one that makes any sense -- is for these source notes to also be converted to the <ref></ref> format. I believe an admin told me some weeks ago that they now have a tool that does this conversion automatically(?) This would be worth investigating. In the meantime, I would recommend that you use my content note system Template:cref and Template:cnote. It is transparent and very simple to use, you have no doubt noticed it in action in the main CG article: "Basque", "Galway", "Neruda", etc. This will allow you to give a name to the note you are going to create, then when we somehow manage to get the totality of them converted, your "cnotes" should automatically convert along with the others, or, if not, if you have chosen a name for each that makes it easy to connect it to the text you are referencing, it should be a straightforward operation to incorporate them into the <ref></ref> system. One caveat: I have never tried using the Template:cref / Template:cnote system intermixed with other notes in the particular format which is employed here, but when I wrote the templates I foresaw that possibility and tried to design the "cnote" system so that they would work together ... -- Polaris999 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: I have found the conversion program User:Cyde/Ref converter ! Should we try it??? --Polaris999 17:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
By all means try the converter, Polaris. I'm a beginner to any computer related matters, and find it a novelty to even copy and paste let alone contemplate different citation styles! But it's always a joy to learn new ways of doing things.--Zleitzen 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Will do! This should be quite an adventure ... --Polaris999 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

REPORT ON CONVERSION OF FOOTNOTES: Hmmmm -- seems it made quite the mess. Nevertheless, it is obviously an intelligent program since it declared that the footnotes in the CG involvement in the Cuban Revolution article "failed the sanity check". I have no doubt that it did the best it could under the circumstances which were definitely adverse! I am attaching a "dump" of the changes it made, and we can try to figure out what needs to be done manually from there:

Warnings occurred while processing this page, displaying now:
 Failing sanity check, there may still be some [[#ref_{{{1}}}|↑]] s left.

Verbose output is:<br>
Matching up ref "knapsack", removing from list, note is: "Quizás esa fue la primera vez que tuve planteado prácticamente ante mí el dilema de mi dedicación a la medicina o a mi deber de soldado revolucionario. Tenía delante de mí una mochila llena de medicamentos y una caja de balas, las dos eran mucho peso para transportarlas juntas; tomé la caja de balas, dejando la mochila ..." (English: "Perhaps this was the first time I was confronted with the real-life dilemma of having to choose between my devotion to medicine and my duty as a revolutionary soldier. Lying at my feet were a knapsack full of medicine and a box of ammunition. They were too heavy for me to carry both of them. I grabbed the box of ammunition, leaving the medicine behind ...".) First published in an article in ''Verde Olivo'', La Habana, Cuba, [[February 26]] [[1961]]. Subsequently published in the book, Guevara, Ernesto Che. ''Pasajes de la Guerra Revolucionaria'', La Habana, Cuba: 1963, Ediciones Unión.
Matching up ref "execution-squads", removing from list, note is: Anderson pp. 264, 269, 277, 279 etc.
Matching up ref "fanatic", removing from list, note is: Mágicas Ruinas, "La última muerte…".
Matching up ref "simon", removing from list, note is: quoted in Mágicas Ruinas, "La última muerte…".
Matching up ref "alegría", removing from list, note is: e.g. Ros, p. 139. <!-- title, publisher, date should be added to References section-->
Matching up ref "eutimio-guerra", removing from list, note is: Morán Arce, 1980.
Matching up ref "nuestraidentidad", removing from list, note is: [http://www.crisol.cult.cu/ident/cautoc.htm Nuestra Identidad] on the official municipal site of [[Cauto Cristo]]. On crisol.cult.cu. (In Spanish.) Accessed [[14 February]] [[2006]].
Matching up ref "luchasarmadas", removing from list, note is: [http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:f7AL-jWgIQ0J:www.crisol.cult.cu/munic/rcauto/pag/orglucharmada.htm+%22Orlando+Lara%22+Batista+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 Organización de las Luchas Armadas Revolucionarias] (In Spanish.) Google's cache of http://www.crisol.cult.cu/munic/rcauto/pag/orglucharmada.htm as retrieved on [[18 July]] [[2005]] 00:32:36 GMT.
Matching up ref "cabdates", removing from list, note is: Anderson, Jon Lee. ''Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life'', New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 372 and p. 425
Matching up ref "skidmore", removing from list, note is: Skidmore, Thomas E. (and Peter H. Smith), ''Modern Latin America'', 4th paperback ed., 2000, p 273.  "The first major political crisis arose over what to do with the captured Batista officials who had been responsible for the worst of the repression.  The revolutionaries resorted to arbitrary procedures in trying their victims, appealing to sentiments of 'ordinary justice' to legitimize their executions.  In the first six months of 1959 about 550 were put to death, following trial by various revolutionary courts.  These executions, punctuated by cries of ''paredón'' (to the wall!), worried the liberals in Cuba and their sympathizers abroad, especially in the United States."
Matching up ref "inra", removing from list, note is: [[October 7]] [[1959]]
Matching up ref "bnc", removing from list, note is: [[November 26]] [[1959]]
Matching up ref "minind", removing from list, note is: [[February 23]] [[1961]]
Matching up ref "man-and", removing from list, note is: Guevara, "Man and Socialism".
Matching up ref "cohetes", removing from list, note is: Anderson, Jon Lee. ''Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life'', New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 545
Replacing ref "alegría" with full note: <ref>e.g. Ros, p. 139. <!-- title, publisher, date should be added to References section--></ref>
Replacing ref "bnc" with full note: <ref>[[November 26]] [[1959]]</ref>
Replacing ref "cabdates" with full note: <ref>Anderson, Jon Lee. ''Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life'', New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 372 and p. 425</ref>
Replacing ref "cohetes" with full note: <ref>Anderson, Jon Lee. ''Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life'', New York: 1997, Grove Press, p. 545</ref>
Replacing ref "eutimio-guerra" with full note: <ref>Morán Arce, 1980.</ref>
Replacing ref "execution-squads" with full note: <ref>Anderson pp. 264, 269, 277, 279 etc.</ref>
Replacing ref "fanatic" with full note: <ref>Mágicas Ruinas, "La última muerte…".</ref>
Replacing ref "inra" with full note: <ref>[[October 7]] [[1959]]</ref>
Replacing ref "knapsack" with full note: <ref>"Quizás esa fue la primera vez que tuve planteado prácticamente ante mí el dilema de mi dedicación a la medicina o a mi deber de soldado revolucionario. Tenía delante de mí una mochila llena de medicamentos y una caja de balas, las dos eran mucho peso para transportarlas juntas; tomé la caja de balas, dejando la mochila ..." (English: "Perhaps this was the first time I was confronted with the real-life dilemma of having to choose between my devotion to medicine and my duty as a revolutionary soldier. Lying at my feet were a knapsack full of medicine and a box of ammunition. They were too heavy for me to carry both of them. I grabbed the box of ammunition, leaving the medicine behind ...".) First published in an article in ''Verde Olivo'', La Habana, Cuba, [[February 26]] [[1961]]. Subsequently published in the book, Guevara, Ernesto Che. ''Pasajes de la Guerra Revolucionaria'', La Habana, Cuba: 1963, Ediciones Unión.</ref>
Replacing ref "luchasarmadas" with full note: <ref>[http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:f7AL-jWgIQ0J:www.crisol.cult.cu/munic/rcauto/pag/orglucharmada.htm+%22Orlando+Lara%22+Batista+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 Organización de las Luchas Armadas Revolucionarias] (In Spanish.) Google's cache of http://www.crisol.cult.cu/munic/rcauto/pag/orglucharmada.htm as retrieved on [[18 July]] [[2005]] 00:32:36 GMT.</ref>
Replacing ref "man-and" with full note: <ref>Guevara, "Man and Socialism".</ref>
Replacing ref "minind" with full note: <ref>[[February 23]] [[1961]]</ref>
Replacing ref "nuestraidentidad" with full note: <ref>[http://www.crisol.cult.cu/ident/cautoc.htm Nuestra Identidad] on the official municipal site of [[Cauto Cristo]]. On crisol.cult.cu. (In Spanish.) Accessed [[14 February]] [[2006]].</ref>
Replacing ref "simon" with full note: <ref>quoted in Mágicas Ruinas, "La última muerte…".</ref>
Replacing ref "skidmore" with full note: <ref>Skidmore, Thomas E. (and Peter H. Smith), ''Modern Latin America'', 4th paperback ed., 2000, p 273.  "The first major political crisis arose over what to do with the captured Batista officials who had been responsible for the worst of the repression.  The revolutionaries resorted to arbitrary procedures in trying their victims, appealing to sentiments of 'ordinary justice' to legitimize their executions.  In the first six months of 1959 about 550 were put to death, following trial by various revolutionary courts.  These executions, punctuated by cries of ''paredón'' (to the wall!), worried the liberals in Cuba and their sympathizers abroad, especially in the United States."</ref>

FINAL REPORT ON CONVERSION OF NOTES FROM OLD FORMAT TO CITE.PHP: I did a few fixes and now everything seems to be fine. There were three "orphan" references that had no "anchors" in the text; these were eliminated. Zleitzen, it's all yours now -- when you create your new source note, we will find out whether everything is truly in "working order". -- Polaris999 19:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Polaris, I can't pretend to understand what all of the above means but I appreciate the good work!--Zleitzen 00:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks to you, Zleitzen, for providing the impetus necessary to get this uninspiring task done -- the article is much the better for it! -- Polaris999 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question for Zleitzen (and others, if they wish to respond)

My attention keeps being drawn back to the first sentence of the section of this article entitled Guerrilla Fighter which reads as follows:

Guevara met Fidel Castro and Fidel's brother Raúl in Mexico City where the two sought refuge after being exiled from Cuba.

I would like to inquire specifically about the phrase, where the two sought refuge after being exiled from Cuba. Is it true that Fidel and Raúl were "exiled" from Cuba? I was not aware that exile was part of the general amnesty issued in 1955 under which they were freed. I had thought that they went to Mexico by choice because they wanted to use that country as a base to organize their revolutionary movement.

Thomas Paterson in his book, Contesting Castro: The United States and the Triumph of the Cuban Revolution (p. 4) writes:

In May 1955 the Moncada fidelistas gained their freedom under a general amnesty. On June 12 they organized Movimiento 26 de Julio (26th of July Movement). Thinking his life endangered and finding freedom of expression stifled, the now-famous Castro fled to Mexico to plan his next move against Batista.

Could you cast any additional light on this matter? Thanking you in advance -- Polaris999 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's something I spotted as well, the departure of Fidel from Cuba was very much his decision, and Raúl (who had left after being falsly accused of arson by Batista's police) was already there. Fidel left largely because he found his favoured violent tactics were incompatible with the more moderate political scene and he was becoming a marginal figure. He said goodbye to his Ortodoxo colleagues and relocated on his own accord. I imagine every source will carry an approximation of that story. Here's a fairly typical account "It was then that he decided on a renewal of violence with an invasion from Mexico and left for Mexico in July of 1955 to prepare for an invasion" [7] --Zleitzen 05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Zleitzen. I have now modified that paragraph with the intention of making it factually accurate. Please check it out when you have a chance ... -- Polaris999 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another problematic sentence

This is the first sentence of the section entitled, Member of revolutionary government:

After the 26th of July Movement entered the capital of Havana on January 2, 1959, a new socialist government was established.

I would like to know what other editors think about this sentence? In my opinion, it is incorrect because the government that was established in January 1959 cannot accurately be described as "socialist" -- and I therefore propose that it be changed. -- Polaris999 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the new government was an assortment of characters - new president Manuel Urrutia was certainly not a socialist, nor was premier José Miró Cardona and so on. It is inaccurate, I'm afraid. --Zleitzen 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Might you be willing to fix it? -- Polaris999 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a wonderful transition you wrote! I hope to add a sentence or two to the end of the preceding section re the battle of Santa Clara one of these days ... -- Polaris999 01:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Polaris. I was scanning the article and read these sentences, "Others believe his endless self-promotion (for example, through his writings) enhanced his image. Yet others say that Guevara discarded his rifle and fled at Alegría de Pio." The traditional historical accounts of that debacle do not make reference to this, it has certainly escaped Hugh Thomas's usually meticulous eye. Our source is Enrique Ros - he is about as partisan a source as one would find on the subject of revolutionary Cuba, (even allowing Orlando Bosch to write a forward to one of his books). Where do we stand on quoting someone like Ros in an article?--Zleitzen 01:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Zleitzen. I think that your re-write of the Legacy section is a most welcome improvement. As for Ros (and Fontova also), I don't consider that they meet the minimum standards set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is excerpted above in the section Role in the Missile Crisis.
The matter of using such dubious sources has also been discussed at length on the Talk page of the main CG article, especially:


As I read back over these exchanges, It seems to me that a consensus was reached that such sources should not be utilized, but nevertheless no action was taken to remove them. Since I had not been a contributor to the Criticism section, I was reluctant to modify it and have only done so in the most egregious cases. I imagine that if you want to try to improve it, your efforts would meet with enthusiastic support among many of the editors who have worked on the CG articles, but also strident opposition from at least one ... -- Polaris999 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escopeteros

There are a few sentences needing sources devoted to assistance by Escopeteros and others. Do we have any more info on this? By the way, I see the Escopeteros article has been created with the customary zeal and highly entertaining prose of a familiar fellow contributor! --Zleitzen 01:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Guevara's writings on the Cuban revolution" section

Hello Zleitzen -- The Alarcón quote you have found is very much to the point; by including it, you are casting light on the "crux of the issue", which for one reason or another has been meticulously suppressed by FCR and his closest collaborators during so many years. -- Polaris999 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Polaris, I believe there was a release of documents in Cuba during the 90s that shed light on the role of the llano in the Cuban revolution, thus helping to reform the commonly held view that the mountain based "barbudos" were the leading guardians of the movement. El Jigue has been hinting this for some time but I haven't found a viable citation to produce until now. Though perhaps unlike EJ, I'd be less inclined to blame Castro, such historiography is common place in any society.--Zleitzen 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zleitzen -- That is interesting about the release of the documents. Although I realize that it is not clear from what I wrote, I was referring in particular to the relationship between CG and the llano people, some of whom detested him. For a long time I have been pondering the question of whether their hostility may have contributed in some way to the failure of his Cuban "base" to adequately support him during the Bolivian operation. (It was Fidel Castro who had ordered both sides of the sierra/llano dissension to "cool it" and not air their views in public, but his directive did not prevent their animosity from continuing to seethe beneath the surface.) -- Polaris999 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The Bolivian theory would seem to make sense, Polaris. In the case of the release of documents, which came from the Cuban office of historic affairs, the rationale was that the government were hoping to re-engage with the dissaffected middle class in Cuba during the bleak 90s. By promoting the role of that group, rather than repeating the traditional stories of the rise of poor peasants & workers, it would restore the urban middle classes faith in a revolution that was fading. I imagine Alarcón, who in my view is ostensibly the president of Cuba and has been for some time, was behind the move. Guevara certainly had a dislike of the urban groups, which I think gets a mention in one of the two articles. Perhaps it is worth investigating and expanding somewhere? --Zleitzen 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely like to investigate it, but don't know how we could prove anything because most of the people who were acting as CG's "support group" in the "Departamento Américas" are known only by their pseudonyms so it would be difficult to connect them with either the sierra or the llano. But if you have any suggestions as to how we might proceed, I would be very interested in hearing them. (I do agree with you re Alarcón.) BTW I just did a re-write of the Granma (yacht) article and would greatly appreciate your turning a critical eye on it and making any changes that you deem appropriate. -- Many thanks, Polaris999 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purges

The article states;

Guevara conducted a series of purges of those he viewed as unreliable or not appropriately ideological

The source provided is Jon Lee Anderson. Checking the appropriate pages of his book, it seems to me that it would take a leap of logic to describe Anderson's description in the terms laid out above. For instance, one of the page numbers given in the our reference list (p.279) refers to the murder of René Cuervo. He was executed by Guevara's forces for "victimizing an entire section of the population of the Sierra, perhaps in collusion with the army. In view of his status as a deserter, the trial was speedy". This case is typical. I have read nothing in those citations that imply that people were executed for being "unreliable or not appropriately ideological". --Zleitzen 15:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of the other page citations given, p264 doesn't refer to executions, p269 refers to Guevara sending his men out to track a deserter with orders "to kill him if they found him". p269 refers to an attack on enemy chivatos and Guevara's orders to kill Cuervo if found. --Zleitzen 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Z: the orders were carried out and Rene Cuervo was killed. The motive behind this killing was apparently to take the money Cuervo was bringing in from the folowers of the now dead Frank Pais and from his parents. As to Cuervo and the others being "bandits, chivatos etc, etc." all we have as evidence are the Che Guevara's words, repeated by Anderson. El Jigue 1-21-07

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/Talk%7EChe_Guevara%27s_involvement_in_the_Cuban_Revolution_676f.html"