User talk:Polaris999/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for User:Polaris999 (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 3 >>

Contents

Welcome

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 21:06 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You may also want to specify that you are not me, nor in any way connected with me. (my usernumber is 9993.) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 03:15 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

email

got an email from you that began, "Thank you for your emails." far as i know, i've never sent you an email. i generally prefer to correspond only at wikipedia re articles, so that other editors can see what's being said. feel free to talk-page me if your email wasn't a mistake. thanks. SaltyPig 14:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

i would like to see the Che Guevara article improved. since there hasn't been much active response to the POV tag i put there, i was planning on laying out all my objections to the article (tons!) on its talk page. probably will do that within the next week. if you want to discuss something about it or just start editing, i'll participate. going to be a nasty fight, i figure. if people embrace a murderer so unconditionally, i fear that rationality, essential to wikipedia, isn't a primary attribute for them. SaltyPig 07:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Che Page

The changes that I wish to make in the header are purely factual ones, dates and places and one grammatical. Perhaps you have noticed that I have already done some editing on other sections of the page along the same lines. For reasons I do not fully understand, I occasionally seem to get logged in and out of wikipedia "spontaneously" and therefore some of the changes I have made recently do not have my signature on them. Since you mention having "tons" of objections to the article, you have probably noticed everything that I have, so I think that I will just wait for your presentation ... Thanks. Polaris999 07:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i think we're concerned with almost separate areas of the article — you more with the accuracy of details, me more with the neutrality of the language and what's often tactically presented/omitted, whether the editors know. seems that the trend at wikipedia is for pages to be overcome by proponents rather than detractors (a prevalent aspect of the internet's tendency toward self-selection). SaltyPig 08:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
agreed -- I didn't look at this page for many months and am now discouraged to see the degree to which it has deteriorated. Some interesting information has been added, but overall the article has become disjointed, often repetitive, sometimes contradictory, and notably deficient in its cursory treatment of, or lack of attention to, several important topics. Observing this degradation makes me wonder about the lasting value of wikipedia since one's efforts to create something useful are so easily wiped away ... Polaris999 09:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
i get discouraged by this here, because often the least skilled editors are the ones most willing to revert aggressively and basically muck up the works (editing takes far more restraint than i had when i first arrived, and i need more still). i find that walking away from articles is the best policy. others will eventually fight for the article a bit, improve it, and then exit as you did. wikipedia is messy, but it's damned amazing, huh? coming along very well, over all. great experiment which i hope is extended into other parts of life. so many articles are superior to those you find at any "pro" site. i think it's a keeper, even with the nonsense in polemical articles. SaltyPig 09:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
i'm wondering about your descision to revert the addition of "including many leftists and anarchists who opposed the new regime as just another dictatorship." the editor's certainly an active contributor (and from what ive seen, always in a constructive way); here are his contributions. That some of the political criminals were actually leftists or anarchists opposing the government seems plausible to me, though, i dont know anything about che past the basics, so this very well may be a commonly held misconception that anyone with half a minute of background in the area knows is untrue. whatever the case, i think the editor was contributing a peice of information which i perosnally feel should be included, if true - to leave it off is to cast che in a more innocent light, which is most certainly POV (as said above, tacitally presented/omitted....seems that the trend at wikipedia is for pages to be overcome by proponents rather than detractors..."). in any case, i think it's a fair statement to include, and im interested in hearing your justification as to why you took it out. like i said, i could be way off here. jfg284 14:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I reverted that statement because, to the best of my knowledge, it is 100% inaccurate. Even though it may "seem plausible" to some, it simply did not happen. Therefore, how could I not revert it? To leave it there would be to knowingly allow wiki readers to be misinformed. Remember that Che's tenure at La Cabaña lasted only six months -- the six months immediately following the victory of the 26th of July Movement on 1 January 1959. The specific task assigned to him was to preside over the trials of "war criminals", i.e. those deemed by Fidel Castro to have been close collaborators of the fallen Batista regime. See, for example, page 145 of "Che Guevara: Compañero" where Jorge Castañeda writes, "Before departing, he [Che] had to supervise, either at close quarters or from his window at La Cabaña, the executions of Batista's collaborators." This same version of events is narrated by Jon Lee Anderson in "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" and every other of the many authors I have read on the subject. Of course, if 69.109.252.6 has uncovered documentary evidence to the contrary, he should re-post his allegations with the appropriate footnotes referencing his sources. Polaris999 03:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yea that's fine, like i said, i really don't know anything about che. on first glance it looked like a che supporter trying to keep something neatly swept away, but i figured i'd ask (especially after seeing how much you have worked on the page). you clearly have a better handle on the subject, and im not going to challenge it. that's the reason i asked you about it: i figured there probably was a real reason you took it out, and i was just making sure. i apologize if it came across as an accusation.jfg284 11:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

External link bot

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Dead external links. Wikipedia talk:Bots is the page to go to request permission to run a bot that edits live content, though for the task you indicate, read-only or even "offline" analysis using Wikipedia:Database downloads is probably sufficient. Good luck, Beland 03:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Beland, for sharing this extremely helpful information! Polaris999 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Che Guevara

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)

Re: those two citations on the exiles: I left the two words "Cuban exiles" instead of the long, self-congratulatory peroration. I say keep the citations: they are perfectly OK citations for what the now-appropriate sentence says. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW while working on the footnote section just now, I saw your note, i.e. "Maybe the translations by Alvaro Vargas Llosa should be checked?". Actually, I did check the translations against the original text when someone first inserted those sentences into the article, and found them to be accurate. Polaris999 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mytest889

Thank you for experimenting with template features, however I'll have to ask you to keep such testing in your userspace. I am moving "Template:Mytest889" and "Template:Mytest789" to {{User:Polaris999/Mytest889}} and {{User:Polaris999/Mytest789}}. You can use any page as a template, you just need to specify the namespace if it's anything other than "Template:". Have fun. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:12, Jan. 1, 2006

Thank you for moving my test template to the correct location -- I had attempted to put it in my user space but hadn't done so correctly. I am wondering if you would be so kind as to explain to me how I can make my test template available for beta testing by the other editors who are also working on the page for which I have designed it? I developed it to address certain difficulties that we have had while working on the page in question. Could I, for example, set it up on a subpage of that page so that it would be available for those of us working on that page, but not for anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaris999 (talk • contribs)
There are no availability restrictions here. Anybody can access anything, regardless of its location — except things that are deleted (which can only be viewed by administrators, and can't be used by anyone). So basically if your intention was to perform "secret tests" or create "restricted-use" templates, it's simply not possible on this site. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:25, Jan. 1, 2006
Thank you for this information. I had thought that it would be a good idea to keep it private during the first few days we use it until we are sure that it doesn't have any bugs, but, since it is relatively straightforward -- and based on an already-working template -- this probably isn't a serious concern. I have been searching for a wiki HELP page re creating and modifying templates but haven't been able to find one yet. If you happen to know of such, I would be very grateful if you would tell me its location. Polaris999 07:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-privacy is an oxymoron, as stated above. The best reference I've found is meta:template. Meta is a separate site, so if you wanted to post questions there you'd have to create a new account on that site, or appear anonymous (as IP number). It's generally preferred to register the same name on different wikimedia sites, if possible. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:45, Jan. 1, 2006

{{d}} and {{db}}

Hello, please use {{d}} or {{delete}} to nominate an article for speedy deletion without giving a reason, and {{db|stupid}} or {{deletebecause|pointless}} to nominate article for speedy deletion with a reason. r3m0t talk 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining ... Polaris999 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Che, again

See Talk:Che Guevara#Song of Roland?, where I had already commented on the issue you brought up at Talk:Basque people. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I did read your comment and agree totally. But since, despite your incisive comment, the sentence remains in the article I thought that perhaps we needed someone else to come over and have a look at it and decide that it needs to go. (I also noticed that you had removed an earlier posting of a similar nature, but that shortly after you did so, it reappeared -- in true phantasmagorical fashion -- in this latest "manifestation" ...) Polaris999 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing great work on this article. I don't have the time for it these days. Just wanted you to know it's appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, and many thanks for your very kind words. I have really been missing your participation these past few weeks and hope that you will have time to return soon! Polaris999 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words as well. I'm pretty plunged into work (spec'ing a rather flexible, integrated email/voicemail/fax system); I'm still probably managing 20 hours a week on Wikipedia, but that's not even enough to generally keep up with my watchlist. If there's anything specific where I can be of help, do let me know, but it's been pretty obvious that you know more about Guevara than I do.

Speaking of which, I just noticed that Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution has recently accrued a lot of very anti-Guevara sentiment that can hardly even pretend to pass for neutral. Can I prevail upon you to take a look? Because this one needs more than I can give to it right now. - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Jmabel. That situation over at "involvement" is one I have not been able to decide to take on. It seems to me that the people who a few weeks ago were determined to dump garbage into the main Che article are now dumping it into "involvement" instead, and since they seem determined to dump it somewhere I have just been ignoring "involvement" because trying to keep the main article in somewhat decent shape is challenge enough for me. (There are still several parts of the main article that need major corrections -- courtesy of you-can-guess-who -- and I plan to work on those soon.) I am surprised, and disappointed, that other wikipedians have not become more engaged in trying to promote NPOV in the "involvement" article, and keep hoping that some of them will awaken to the task ... Polaris999 06:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Che Guevara article

I've added the info on his treatment of Bolivian prisoners compared to his own fate to the section on his death. I'm not quite sure how to put your info in...should it be included with this to back up the contrasts in treatment or should it be a seperate paragraph in the part about the insurgency? PJB 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How does this sound?

Despite the violent nature of the conflict it might also be appropriate to mention that Che gave medical attention to all of the wounded Bolivian soldiers whom the guerrillas took prisoner, before releasing them. Even after his last battle at the Quebrada del Yuro, in which he had been wounded, when he was taken to a temporary holding location and saw there a number of Bolivian soldiers who had also been wounded in the battle, he offered to give them medical care (His offer was turned down by the Bolivian officer in charge.). Source: Paco Taibo Ignacio II.

I'm not sure if it sounds good? I think I need to tie it in more with the INSURGENCY section...what do you think? PJB 17:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, PJB. I think what you have added to the article is excellent but feel that what I wrote could benefit from being re-worded somewhat -- for example, probably the words "it might also be appropriate to mention" could be removed because I don't think that there is any question but that it is appropriate to include this information here and if you agree then I think that we don't need to use those introductory words. I am also not very happy about the way I worded the matter of his treating the prisoners "before releasing them" as it is rather tautological since he could hardly have treated the prisoners after the guerrillas had released them. I think that saying something to the effect "Che gave medical attention to all of the wounded Bolivian soldiers whom the guerrillas took prisoner, and then released them on their word that they would not participate in any future fighting against the guerrillas" might be better. (And I think that it could be placed in the same paragraph that you have already worked on.)
PJB, do you have access to the Taibo book? The reference is on page 726 (in the Spanish language edition). BTW I do not, of course, know how deeply you wish to develop this topic, but as I believe you are aware, most of the information that certain anti-Che editors have inserted into this article is blatantly false. Che was not at all a "bloodthirsty maniac" -- very far from it! To the best of my knowledge, and I have researched this extensively, he always treated adversaries from the armed forces against which he was fighting with great humanity. It is true that he "oversaw" some executions at La Cabaña fortress in 1959, but these were mainly of individuals from the BRAC and other Batista death squads who had committed atrocities. Polaris999 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:re-work

Sorry. You're right. Forgot about that case. -- TKD 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello TKD --I appreciate your looking at my template! Do you have any favorite pages re templates that you might suggest to me? Best wishes from Polaris999 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Polaris. Other than the ones that you listed up above, I like browsing Category:Esoteric templates from time to time to see whether there's anything interesting; in fact, that's how I found your template. I would suggest, however, linking to the Meta-version of the m:Help:Templates and m:Help:Advanced templates pages; some of the templates used in the examples don't exist on Wikipedia, which can make following the examples a bit difficult. -- TKD 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, TKD. Many thanks for pointing out the advantage of using the m: versions -- that certainly makes a difference! Polaris999 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara

You are, of course, completely right, since you are the one who has written the article, not I. I have read your idea and it seems like the best way to go; Let's leave the information about his beginning to play chess and his taking up photography in the "Youth" section, add the reference about him playing chess in Cuba and the pictures in Bolivia. Thanks.LordViD 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now implemented your idea. Check it out and let me know what you think. LordViD 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply, LordVid. Will you do this, or shall I? (My preference is you, since you bring a fresh perspective to the article.)
BTW I have just noticed a problem with a source concerning the "dispute" over CG's birthdate. The spelling looked wrong to me, so I corrected it, but then decided to take a look at where the link leads ... and was surprised to discover that it leads to an older version of our very own wiki CG article! I don't think that we can cite ourselves, so this needs to be changed ASAP. We already have a good link to a source for that, probably in the Content Notes (as I recall). Anyway, I can re-do the source note #3 to link to an acceptable source and will get to work on that just as soon as I finish a source note that I am now preparing for the Sartre comment in the Legacy section... Polaris999 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
LordVid, I was trying to post my answer to you just as you were writing to me [so I got "edit conflict" message several times] to say that you had taken care of the merged sections. Thank you!! I will go back to the CG page now to see your new version ... Polaris999 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Masterful! You definitely found the perfect place to insert that sentence re the photos. And I guess that the matter of the chess games in Cuba has been relegated to the source note? Seems fine to me. Again, many thanks.
Meanwhile, I have just discovered another matter that requires our prompt attention: some of the source notes are out of order (off by one). This problem affects at least all source notes after number [40] -- I haven't yet tried to trace it back to see how far it goes or what has caused this malfunction. I will start working on that as soon as I finish adding the two source notes I have "in the pipeline" right now. Polaris999 06:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I just found the info re chess at the end of the Cuba section. I moved it up a few paragraphs, please take a look and see how you like it in that location ... (It just didn't seem quite right to me to have it sandwiched between launching ballistic missiles and delivering a speech at the UN, but I may be wrong about this ...) Polaris999 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought the source given for the birthdate was lifted from that website, not the opposite. As for the chess comments, the place you put it in is perfect. I will also be looking into the source note malfunction. Thanks. LordViD 06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad we have found satisfactory "new homes" for chess and photos -- actually, I think that where we have them now is a notable improvement over the "stub" sub-section that previously housed them.
Source Notes seems to be working fine now. I am going through them one by one, just to make sure. At present, have reached [43] and it is all right, so perhaps what I experienced was just a transitory problem. Maybe two people were editing at about the same time and this caused some perturbation ... Polaris999 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the source note seem to be working fine with me also. That's most of the problems fixed right? The external links still need to be shortened and trimmed though. LordViD 06:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the external links section seems to be the most important remaining task. To start, would you agree that we could remove links to websites that are already included in the Source Notes section? Polaris999 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was actually going to ask you the same thing. Removing External links already in the source notes is a good idea. LordViD 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Very good -- I will take out the couple I am aware of right now. Incidentally, there are a few editors who like to add their favorite links to each possible reference and/or links sub-section of the CG article, apparently with the intention of increasing their exposure, and even though others of us try to remove duplicates, it isn't always possible for us to keep up with them ... Polaris999 07:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done many changes since last time, hopefully for the better. Look at them and tell me if you object to any;

  • I have split the lead section into paragraphs
  • I have shortened the external links. I removed some of them and changed some to source notes. I have also made one inline in the first sentence under the "Disappearance from Cuba" heading (the audio one)
  • I have reduced the size of the references and and the external links sections.

Finally, what do you say about adding Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg to the article. If so, where shall we place it? LordViD 13:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, LordViD. I would very much like to see the TIME cover featuring CG restored to this article -- in fact, I uploaded it to Wiki specifically to use it in the "Cuba" section where it was until that section became so unruly that Jmabel split most of it off from the main article to create "Che Guevara's Involvement in the Cuban Revolution" and the TIME cover went with it.
After reading your comment (above), I brought it back in and placed it in a location that seems fairly good to me. However, I would suggest that we consider removing the photo at the top of the section ("After the battle of Santa Clara") because that photo was also copied to the "Involvement" article, so now we have two duplicated photos. From my point of view, the best solution would be to remove the "Battle" image from this main article and remove the TIME cover image from the "Involvement" article, thereby eliminating the redundancy. Then we can put the TIME cover image in this main article in the location where the "Battle" image was. What are your thoughts about this?
I also want to mention a couple of other points:
First, re the link
http://chehasta.narod.ru Guerrillero heroico – information, articles, pictures, and ebooks
In the past, we have had to remove this link because it has caused problems with loading the entire CG wiki article (page freezes), apparently by triggering some anti-virus alert. I haven't wanted to investigate this problem in depth for fear of having my system damaged. Maybe this URL is working all right now, but I thought you should know about this history.
Second, in the "Criticism" sub-section, there appears the following:
"They believe that Guevara murdered individuals on dubious grounds and ..."
This wording has bothered me ever since it first appeared on the page because it raises the question of whether anyone has ever been murdered on "non-dubious grounds". IMHO it definitely needs re-wording. Polaris999 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the pictures; I don't believe there is no need for removing any of the pictures. They all serve their purpose and it's not a problem if they are redundant with other articles. As for the link; this problem doesn't happen with me, though feel free to remove it if you wish. About the line; you are correct, a rewording is necessary, though you should do it since you know much more about the topic than I. :) LordViD 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, LordViD, and also for the very kind mentions on the FAC page!!
I am actually glad that you feel that way about the photos since my original intention was for both of them to be in the main CG article and, from my personal point of view, if "Involvement" duplicates them that is a side issue concerning the people who are working on that article, not me.
About the re-wording. Would you mind giving it a try? That entire sentence is so annoying to me that my mind goes numb when I look at it. I really believe you will do a much better job of fixing it than I ever could ...
One thing I have always wanted to add to the CG article is a sound byte of a native Spanish speaker (Argentine, if possible, but not necessarily if one can't be found) pronouncing Che Guevara. I was wondering if Spangineer might be willing to do this? (We could use the Template:Audio to insert it into the introduction, immediately after his name.)
Finally, just wanted to tell you that at present I am doing a bit of work on the "Youth" section, trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised about it ... Polaris999 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: A question I would like to ask you --
This is another matter that has been pending for quite a while and I would like to get your feedback about it. In the "Capture and execution" sub-section, we find the following sentence:
A CIA agent and veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, Félix Rodríguez, headed the hunt for Guevara in Bolivia.
My question is, who qualifies as a "veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs"? I would assume that only a person who had actually participated in the invasion would qualify. This sentence attracted my attention because I had never before heard that Félix Rodríguez had been one of the invaders. I did some research and learned that, in fact, he was not one of the invaders, although it seems that he was a covert CIA agent operating in Havana before the invasion occurred. (And after its failure he sought "political asylum" in an embassy friendly to the USA.) On this basis, I would not describe him as a "veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs", but I hadn't bothered to make an issue of this before now. However, since the CG article is now a FAC, I want to strive for as close to 100% accuracy as we can get ... Polaris999 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. As for the sentence troubling you, I'm going to take a shot at rewriting it. As for the Audio of pronounciation; that would be an excellent idea. Have you already found the sound byte? As for the Felix Rodriguez part; I ahve also done some research and found that he was not part of the invasion. I'm going to remove the part about him being a veteran of the invasion. LordViD 19:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am most grateful that you are going to re-work that unfortunate sentence. Re Rodriguez, I think the sentence reads much better the way you have re-written it; however, I notice that the source note does seem to indicate that he is accepted as a member of the "Brigade 2506" even though he didn't participate in the landing.
Re the sound byte, we have to get a native Spanish speaker to record and upload the pronunciation file. I think that the person should say, "Ernesto Che Guevara". Once they have uploaded it as an .ogg file, I will bring it into the CG article in the aforementioned location. I thought that Spangineer may be or might know a native Latin American (preferably Argentine) speaker who would make this sound byte for the article. Or perhaps you know someone else? Or maybe we could put a request on Wikipedia for an Argentine to do this for us? (Here is an example: Médecins Sans Frontières)
I have been contending with a big mess that one of the people who frequently "contributes" to the CG page made a short while ago. He added a hyperlink (which happens to be superfluous since we already have a source note linking to the same URL in that very paragraph) right smack into the middle of one of the existing refs!! I had to go back to an earlier version and pull out the whole paragraph and restore it. I don't see any reason to add a second source note for the same URL, unless you say otherwise ... Polaris999 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, sorry for the late reply. I have tried to rewrite that sentence, but it is very frustrating and I find it difficult to do so. My only thought here would be to remove the "on dubious grounds" part, so the sentence reads: They believe that Guevara murdered individuals and took their property, seized private manors for himself.... How does that sound?

As for the sound byte, I will ask Spangineer, If he can't then we will probably have to put up a request for it. Regarding the hyperlink; you were perfectly right in removing it. :) LordViD 18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello LordViD. Many thanks for your reply and for checking with Spangineer to see if he can do the pronunciation byte. Today I have moved a couple of sections at the end around, hoping to improve the overall structure of the article. For this, I have been using Tony Blair -- which is an FA -- as a model. Please take a look when you have a chance and see if you approve or wish to re-vert my changes.
Re that toxic sentence: Do you think that it might be better to say "They say" or "They maintain" rather than "They believe" because who knows whether they really believe this or not; seems to me that they probably know it isn't true but are just circulating these -*-*- for propaganda purposes. Anyway, I leave it wholly to your discretion. Polaris999 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work on those changes you made! I've rewritten the sentence according your suggestions and I've asked Spangineer for the audio clip; I'm waiting for his reply. Thanks! LordViD 18:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, LordViD. I am very glad that you like my latest changes. I think you did an excellent job re-working that sentence, and it is great news that Spangineer is going to do the pronunciation clip! (I read his acceptance on his Talk page.) Dakota is interested in putting semi-protection on the article, which I wholeheartedly support. Thanks principally to your noteworthy efforts, IMHO the CG article is now in the best shape ever. Polaris999 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this has grown into a very long discussion! Anyway, I have a few things to discuss with you regarding the article;

  1. In the lead, it says Guevara both studied medicine and traveled "rough" throughout Latin America.... The word "rough" has been bothering me for a while now, as I feel that it breaks the "flow". My thoughts would be to remove it, or remove the speech marks around it. But if you see otherwise then let's leave it.
  1. In the Early Life section, it says ...earned the nickname "Fuser" (a contraction of "El Furibundo Serna").... I think a note should be added translating what "El Furibundo Serna" means.

Other than that, the article is looking perfect! Thanks. LordViD 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Greetings, LordVid. I am not sure what the best means to convey the information about the way CG travelled through Latin American might be, but I do think we should try to do this -- because many upper-class Argentines travel "throughout Latin America" but never see it the way Che did because they fly from city to city, stay in posh hotels, etc. Do you know of some other word to describe the type of travel he did? In Europe, he probably would have done youth hosteling, but since such hostels didn't exist in LA they had to find shelter as best they could. Perhaps we could say he "travelled by motorbike and motorcycle throughout Latin America"? -- but it seems that adds too many more words. Perhaps we should try it without the " " marks as you suggest. Or if you feel that it isn't necessary, go ahead and do just take it out. The truth is, that entire sentence is definitely not a favorite of mine but I have not had any inspiration as to how it could be improved ...
Re el Furibundo, I was just sort of assuming that 99% of English speakers would know intuitively what "Furibundo" means, but it will be no problem to include an approximate English equivalent there. Do you think that "Raging" comes close?
I noticed last night that the CG article survived a "cut" that was made of FAC, so that is encouraging! BTW I am working on a Timeline, which I hope to have ready today -- I just have to do a bit of programming on the template. You don't happen to know how to do a pop-up in Wikipedia, do you? Or perhaps it can't be done, as I don't recall ever seeing one. Anyway, if I could figure that out, it would be my first choice for the timeline ... Polaris999 18:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Polaris, I also dislike this sentence, but since there's no alternative right now let's leave everything as it is and maybe revisit it later. As for the "el Furibundo", I can assure you 99% of English speaker would not know what Furibundo means :) - "Raging" puts it perfectly.

Good luck on the timeline; I won't be of any help since my technical skills aren't really that great, so I wouldn't know how to make a pop-up.

There's a question I've been meaning to ask you for a long time; when are you going to add your vote to the FAC page? I assumed you would be the first to do so since you're the major contributor to this article. LordViD 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello LordVid -- Perhaps one of us will come up with a better idea for that sentence -- hope so!! About my voting on the FAC page, I had thought that the fact that I am a major contributor to the CG article sort of disqualified me from casting a vote, because my vote would hardly been seen as "impartial". Do you really think I can/should vote? Is it customary for "major contributors" to do so? Polaris999 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is disqualified from voting except the nominator. Your vote could only increase the chances of this article being featured. :) LordViD 15:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and before I forget; That is one excellent timeline! Great work! LordViD 15:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining re the FAC vote -- as you may have noticed, I have now recorded my Support for the nomination. I am very happy that you like the Che Timeline, and I think that your Che Topics is superb and a marked improvement over what we had in the "See also" section previously. Did you see I made a few minor edits in various sections tonight? At this point, no other additions or enhancements occur to me. I have been thinking about the request for a section re "Che the Thinker" -- don't know whether I should try to add a couple of paragraphs to attempt to address this or if we should leave the article "as is" and plan to add a "daughter" article on this topic some time in the future. I am inclined to favor the latter alternative and would appreciate very much hearing your views ... Polaris999 08:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments on the topics, though I need your help in expanding some entries and removing some. I forgot, for example, that the 26th of July Movement was a group of people, and not a political event. So I wanted to ask you some questions;

1) Are Carlos Fonseca, Luis Carlos Prestes and Colegio Cesar Chavez really that relevant to Guevara? 2)Should we I add Communism to the topics, or should I remove Marxism/Socialism, or should I leave everything as it is? 3)Do you know anything else I can add/remove?

As for the "Che the thinker", if you feel you would be able to make an article about the subject, then do so, and a brief summary could be added to the Che Guevara article, like the "Involvement" section. Thanks for adding your support! LordViD 15:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello LordViD. Thank you for correcting my accidental deletion of the word "addressing" in that caption! BTW that audio clip is an excellent one and I would very much like to include it somewhere in the article, but I had to remove it from that location because upon listening to it again I suddenly realized that, although the fragment in question closely resembles a paragraph of his speech at the UN, it was in fact taken not from the UN speech but rather from a speech (perhaps a kind of rehearsal for the UN appearance) that he had made in Santiago de Cuba a few days before. So right now I am trying to figure out where I might be able to insert a link to it ...
Now, on to your questions re the topics. First, perhaps we should differentiate in that section between the 26th of July which was a political event (i.e., the attack on the Moncada Barracks in 1953) and the 26th of July Revolutionary Movement, since both are important. Or perhaps, since CG of course did not participate in the attack on the Moncada Barracks, we should not include that link? ... (your choice!) Second, I think that Marxism definitely needs to be included, but perhaps not Communism.
Concerning the other three you mention, I would favor eliminating Luis Carlos Prestes and Colegio Cesar Chavez; however, Carlos Fonseca is more closely linked to Che than many people realize and I would therefore like to retain that reference.
I will be trying to think of more entries for that section and hope to have a few suggestions for additions to forward to you later today.
I would like to ask your opinion about the following sentence which I have highlighted in red. Specifically, I would like to know how you feel about the assertion, "This statement is made more credible by ... ". Personally, I don't find that what follows there makes the statement about the missiles one whit more or less credible, so would like to know what you think. In case you agree with me on its low relevancy here, particularly in view of its highly speculative nature, how would you feel about my moving it into a source note connected to his trip to NYC and UN speech in the next paragraph?
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 months later, he stated that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them against major U.S. cities.[19] This statement is made more credible by the putative links of Che Guevara to Québécois terrorist groups (including Canadian Michelle Duclos) who participated in the foiled plot to destroy the Statue of Liberty in New York City.[20][21]
Lastly, I think that I will make some notes with a view to possibly writing a sub-article on his ideas and then see what (if anything) evolves therefrom ... Polaris999 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Polaris..extremely sorry for the (very) late reply. Firstly, thank you for your advice; I have revised the template according to your suggestions. Secondly, you're right about that sentence; feel free to convert it into a source note if you wish. LordViD 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello LordViD -- I apologize too for not getting back to you earlier about possible additions to the "See also" section. It seems to me that most of the topics we might want to include there already have links because we mention them in the text of the article. The only additional topic I have been able to come up with that might (or might not) be appropriate is Sino-Soviet split which does provide some useful background re the controversy that colored the political environment in Cuba during his final years there. When you have a chance, I would greatly appreciate your having a look at the photo of his birthplace that Pablo_flores took especially for the article and see if you like where I have placed it or perhaps have a better suggestion. (I put his other photos in the CG "Photo Gallery" on the Commons.) Polaris999 06:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Polaris, thank you for your advice. I don't feel comfortable adding the Sino-Soviet split, as I believe the events in the See also should be directly related to Guevara. I saw the picture of Guevara's birthplace, and I must say it's a very welcome addition and a great change from all those black and white photographs :-)

On a different note, something that has been bothering me with the article is the "Films and video games" section. Most of the video games listed are speculated to be references of Guevara, and I don't believe we need a list of every reference to Guevara in video games. I would like to omit this useless list. As for the films, my thought would be to move them to the support section, but that will break the tone and flow of the support section, so I would like to hear your thoughts on all this. Thanks. LordViD 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CG lead

Hi Polaris; I reverted the first paragraph of the lead because that "left wing mileu" thing didn't make sense and didn't seem relevant. I'm not as opposed to the other addition (that they killed him because they were worried about him escaping or being released later), though it could probably be worded better. What do you think? --Spangineer (háblame) 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good news that it has been reverted -- it was painful to see your careful work on that section suddenly disappear under a pile of verbiage. That information about the left-wing milieu, etc. is, of course, fully covered in the "Youth" section.
Re the bit about his possibly escaping or being released, I share your ambivalence here. As Che might have put it, the content is acceptable, but the form is reprehensible. Perhaps you could do some magic on it to make it "flow"? Or, alternatively, I am sure that it would fit in somewhere in the "Capture and Execution" section ... Thank you! Polaris999 22:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Update -- Spangineer, for the sake of accuracy, I had to take out that "tack-on" added by 205.240.227.15 because I had originally written:
"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."
and, according to the accounts I have read, "the participants in and witnesses to the events ..." whom I am referencing never mentioned anything about a concern that his imprisonment might be followed by "his eventual release and renewal of guerrilla activities."
I do not doubt, however, that such a concern may have contributed -- perhaps significantly -- to the decision of Barrientos et al. to execute him, and I think that it would be worthwhile to mention this possibility in the "Capture and execution" section. Polaris999 23:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

La Coubre explosion

Hi, you seem to have created this page as a placeholder for an article. This is not usual practice here, as normally we want to avoid self references in the encyclopedia, so I added a speedy tag to it. If you wish to start an actual article there, however, then please go ahead. Thanks. Flowerparty■ 02:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello -- Thank you for the warning about this. I was responding to a request by one of the editors who has been working on an article with me -- he thought that it was time to set up a separate article for La Coubre event, and being in agreement with him I did so. (I think that being an unregistered user he cannot set up an article himself.) I am always coming across the stubs of articles, so I am surprised that this one is a problem. I am right now in the process of writing a message to him so that he can start putting information into that article. However, I will now instead put something in there myself, just so that others won't think it is merely a placeholder ... Polaris999 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that. Short articles are not generally a problem as long as they contain some text which at least explains the title. The page looks like a pretty good stub now. As for your friend, perhaps you could suggest they sign up for an account - it's easy, and who wouldn't love to have their own Wikipedia account! Flowerparty■ 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Flowerparty -- So many times have various of us working on the article I mentioned asked that user to register, but he simply doesn't want to. Incomprehensible for the rest of us, but that's how he feels. I'm glad that the beginning of the La Coubre article is all right now, and I will soon add a photo to it just to make it look a bit better while it is awaiting for input from "unregistered". Polaris999 03:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara, otra vez ...

Hello LordViD: The previous topic has gotten so long that I thought it was time to start a new one! Very glad to hear that you like the photo of the house and its placement. I agree with you re keeping the "See also" section for articles directly related to Che. About what to do with the videogames section, I have mixed feelings. If it were to disappear, I personally would not mind at all; however, while working on this article over the past many months, I have observed that there are several users who every so often come on and add new titles, details, etc. to that section. I have the feeling that it must mean something to them and would therefore be hesitant about removing it completely. Re the films, I don't think that they can be moved in toto into the Support section because it is my understanding that some of them are not supportive, and, in general, it just doesn't seem to be the right place for them. Do you think it might be possible to convert the entire "In Films and videogames" section into a separate "daughter" article and then include it in the "See also" section as you have done with "Involvement"? Polaris999 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello again, LordViD -- I need to ask you about something else. Specifically, in the "Criticism" sub-section, there is a paragraph consisting of one sentence, to wit:

Some critics, such as Che-Mart, have merchandised their dislike of Che Guevara by marketing T-shirts poking fun at both Che Guevara and his supporters, casting aspersions, for example, on what they perceive as an irony: Che Guevara as one of capitalism's hottest-selling images.[57]

It is my understanding that one-sentence paragraphs are greatly deprecated by Wikipedia (and all other publishers with which I am familiar). I notice on the "Talk" page that someone raised the question as to whether the merchandising of anti-Che items should be considered a form of criticism. Anyway, my primary concern is the "orphan" paragraph and what to do about it ... Polaris999 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you have a chance, would you please take a look at the way the "Legacy" and "Criticism" sections are handled in John F. Kennedy to see if you think we might try to modify the CG article along similar lines? The "Legacy" section of Theodore Roosevelt is also interesting ... Polaris999 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Polaris, good choice on starting a new section! Also, thank you for starting a daughter article, thus ridding us of the foul "Films and video games" section. However, I believe leaving it as an empty section in the main article with a link is not the best way to go. I think it would be better to write a brief (one or two sentences long) paragraph in that section, under the link to the daughter article. Also how would you feel about making the "Popular culture" section a subsection of "Legacy" section?

Re the paragraph, I will have alook at it now and try to merge it.

As for the section organisation; are you suggesting that we merge "support" with "legacy" (with "popular culture" being a subsection), and move "criticsm" to its own section? That is fine by me and would probably improve the article. LordViD 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello LordViD, As I had a few minutes, I decided to go ahead and make some changes (as you noticed) so that you could see how they look and then decide whether to keep them or revert. Glad you like the "spin-off" -- I think that this will also make the video game fans happy as they will now be able to add more content to their section.
The option you describe, i.e. merging '"support" with "legacy" (with "popular culture" being a subsection), and move "criticism" to its own section' is one I was considering. Would you want to do the re-structuring? :)Then I think that we also need to improve the Legacy section by adding to it -- I have a couple of ideas about that. (Maybe I can bring in some of the thoughts about his contributions to philosophy there.) ...
Thank you for taking a look at "orphan" to see what can be done there! Polaris999 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I fear this discussion will turn into a long one too! I have merged the orphan and restructured the sections per your suggestions. A few points come up now;

  1. It would be nice to have a picture in the crticism section - any ideas?
  2. What was the reason behind renaming "Published works"?

Thanks! :-) LordViD 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work on the re-structuring, LordVid! Many thanks!! Concerning a photo for the Criticism section, sorry but I have no idea. The only images of this type that I have seen are those of "anti-Che" merchandise via the CheMart link, don't know if that is what you are thinking of? Because other than that what would the possibilities be, except perhaps a book cover?
Re the name change from "Published works" to "List of works" -- that section had been called, as I recall, simply "Works" for a long time and then I added the "Published". But several times when reading through the article I have wondered if the title "Published works" might confuse some readers into thinking that the books listed are references for the article, so I thought maybe a name change was in order. Some Wiki articles use a "List of works", so I thought I would try that. But perhaps "Che Guevara's Published Works" would be a better option? Or, if you prefer going back to "Published Works" that is fine with me. (What bothers me a bit is that since no author is listed for these works, unless we do something to make it clear that they are Che's works, this is not necessarily apparent to readers who are unfamiliar with them.)
Although I hadn't realized this earlier, I suppose that the demand for a section about Che's philosophy arises from the sentence, "Guevara's supporters believe he may yet prove to be the most important thinker and activist in Latin America since Simón Bolívar ..." written by I do not know whom. If we are going to keep that reference to "thinker" in the article, I suppose that we shall have to provide at least a few paragraphs and perhaps a sub-section to develop it. Polaris999 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Polaris. Like you said, I was thinking of adding a pic of one of those anti-Che shirts from Che-Mart[1], but I don't know the legal status of such a picture.

Re the name change; I agree with you on the confusion thing, though I don't like "List of works". The best compromise here would be to call it as you suggested: "Che Guevara's published works", but for the sake of briefness, let's call it "Guevara's published works". Is that okay with you?

Re that unsourced sentence, I would prefer to have a sub-section on his philosophies regardless of that sentence's presence or not, for the sake of comprehensiveness and for the sake of satisfying some of the objectors to this article. However, that would only mean more work for you since you are the primary "author" of this article and probably the only one who knows enough to write abuot the subject. Thus the decision of removing it or keeping it is entirely up to you.

Another thing; an anon has removed your name change to the Early life section. I tend to support this decision, since "Family heritage and early life" is just too long, and the family heritage part is only one paragraph of the entire section and thus not important enough to include in the title. Also, a small edit war is occuring in which several users are adding the Category:Humanitarians to the article and several others removing it. What do you think? Thanks.LordViD 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, LordVid: I think that "Guevara's Published Works" would be a good solution. Re the change of title of the section "Family heritage and early life", I have seen that usage in other FA articles and prefer it because it is more accurate, but, on the other hand, it is really a matter of minimal importance to me which version is used, so let's leave it as "Early Life". Concerning the edit warring around Category:Humanitarians, I would say that it was certainly Che's intention to be a humanitarian, but whether or not he achieved that goal is probably an evaluation that each individual who reads about him must make on his/her own, so let the edit warring continue ... It remains my intention to write at least a few paras about his ideas, but I got side-tracked yesterday by the discovery of some fascinating information on his family background (perhaps you have noticed that I am working on his genealogy on wikiTree ((and elsewhere)). Hopefully, I will get back to "Thought" today: I find it a daunting task because I want to be very careful not to misrepresent any of his ideas. Polaris999 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Polaris. I have, on your say-so, reverted to the title you prefer. I'm pretty sure writing about Guevara's ideas is a daunting task, and I wanted to say that everybody who has read this article really appreciates your hard work into turning this article into one of the best on Wikipedia. Thanks. LordViD 19:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, LordVid: Many thanks for your words of encouragement and for everything you have done and are doing to make this into a first-class article!!
I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to whether or not we should include in the paragraph in "Family heritage and early life" a mention of the fact that Che's great-great-great grandfather, Don Luís Peralta, at one time owned the land on which Oakland, Alameda, Fruitvale, San Leandro, etc. (most of the area occupied by the cities on the eastern slope of San Francisco Bay) now stand, in addition to most of New Mexico, having received the original land grant from the King of Spain. When Che was asked about his family background, he often replied jestingly that he knew "very little" about it -- although, in fact, he knew more about it than perhaps he would have wished. It was a family joke that if his father, Ernesto Guevara Lynch, had exercised his claim to American citizenship (to which he was entitled because both of his parents were U.S. citizens, having been born in California), Che and his siblings would have grown up as U.S. citizens rather than Argentines ... Polaris999 20:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Polaris, feel free to add that informaton, though it'd be best if you kept it a paragraph or so long. A user has added a sentence about Neo-Nazis wearing Che t-shirts in the Legacy section, frankly, I don't know what to do wit it. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. LordViD 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi LordVid: Thank you for your reply -- I would keep that additional information about the California background to perhaps one or two sentences (just telling about the Peralta connection, I do not plan to mention anything about his father's right to claim U.S. citizenship because, since he didn't, it is just an amusing "what if"). Re the "sentence about Neo-Nazis wearing Che t-shirts" that someone has inserted into the Legacy section, my reaction is: The unexpected is always upon us. Like you, I have no idea what to do with it, nor can I imagine why Neo-Nazis would want to wear Che's image. Nevertheless, it is interesting to learn that this is occurring. Is there a "higher authority" on Wiki to which one can appeal for guidance in situations like this? Polaris999 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"Higher authority"? I dont't think there is. I have researched the topic though, and found this link on Che-Lives[2]] which deals with the topic, but I still can't understand why the Neo-nazis are wearing Che shirts. I may research this further, and expand on that sentence. LordViD 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi LordVid. That link on che-lives.com is very interesting. It seems that their basic motive, as explained in the abc.es article, is to seek to widen their appeal beyond their core group and that they think that wearing Che T-shirts will help them to do this. They either don't know about, or simply don't care about, the fact that he was totally opposed to all forms of fascism. This bizarre trend would seem to represent the latest, and most perverted, manifestation of the exploitation phenomenon. Polaris999 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The "higher authority" I was thinking of seems to be the RfC process. But hopefully what you are going to write will obviate the need to go there ... Polaris999 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Do you know Spanish so that you were able to read the abc.es? If not, I would be glad to do a Q&D translation for you ... Polaris999 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

More: I just came across the cover of Der Spiegel, #46 of 2005, presumably mid-November, which features Che and Gandhi on the cover and has as the caption: "The Inheritors of Gandhi and Guevara: Europe's Peaceful Revolutionaries". Maybe you could somehow merge this and the neo-nazi bit together explaining how his image is being utilized by (apparently) all sides in Germany. Here is a link to the image, in case you wish to use it: [3] Polaris999 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Polaris. An anon has removed that Neo-Nazi sentence, I'll re-add it shortly when I have the material ready. Thank you the pic, and also, I will need that translation as my spanish is very bad. Perhaps more improtantly, a user has added two "citation needed" tags at two different statements in the "criticism" section. LordViD 15:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

FAC for Che

Hi Polaris

Unfortunately, Che hasn't promoted to FA, I don't know why? I was an ardent supporter, but as usual, Raul never gave his reasons. I suppose it's about Che's legacy? Any plans now? Temporary account 04:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello -- Thank you very much for your message and support of the Che article. I wish I had some clue as to what what futher modifications might be needed but I confess to being at a loss. The problem may be with the Legacy section as you mention. That is the one section that I had no part in writing (only did some cleanup/copy-edit on it) and therefore am reticent to attempt to re-do it -- could you suggest any improvements? Polaris999 04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's the toxic "Che the thinker" section that some people want that didn't promote the article. I really can't understand what they mean by it. LordViD 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution: again a POV fork

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'm way 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 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel. Thank you so very much for your support of the FAC! About the "Involvement" article, I believe that the people who are writing it are artfully exploiting a particular weakness of Wikipedia, i.e. that one can say anything so long as s/he has a published source for it. Same problem we have discussed before. Was Che a coward? Well, I remember that, talking about the war against Batista, Fidel once said, "Wherever the place of maximum danger was, that is where you would find Che." No writer I personally consider credible has ever suggested he was anything but courageous, audacious, even reckless in his total disregard for his own safety during combat. Moreover, the Cubans who accompanied him to Congo and Bolivia were all, or almost all, former members of his Column 8 and there is no reason to believe that they would have put their lives in his hands if they had thought him to be a whimpering coward. But the irony is that by Wikipedia's standards, my credible sources are not asccorded any more weight than the scurrilous ones used by the people who seek to calumny Che's memory. Therefore, what can I do? If I try to remove that material, they will simply put it back in alleging that it is "sourced" ... Polaris999 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You can at least balance it with those saying the opposite. - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!

Congratulations!!! In recognition for all your amazing work;

For all your hard work revolutionizing this article and bringing it up to Featured status, you, Polaris, deserve the "Che Guevara" award. You're an amazing editor! LordViD
For all your hard work revolutionizing this article and bringing it up to Featured status, you, Polaris, deserve the "Che Guevara" award. You're an amazing editor! LordViD

Where will you go from here? Will you keep editing this article? Or will you edit something else? As for me, my whole purpose was to get it up to FA status; now that this has happened, a few more finishing touches and then I'm gone. I'll still keep an eye on it though. It has been really amazing working with you. Best of luck, LordViD 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much, LordViD, for honoring me with this extraordinary and greatly appreciated award! It has been inspiring to work with you and I am very glad to learn that you will be keeping an eye on the Che article because I imagine that maintaining it in "good condition" will prove to be quite a challenge. I hope you enjoy your much-deserved Wiki-break -- sounds like an excellent idea. My plans are to stay close to Che and continue working on the "Thought" section. I have also become intrigued by certain of his California ancestors and may explore the possibility of writing a separate article about them. I wish you the best of luck in all you do! Polaris999 09:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Please be wary of removing a reference link simply because it doesn't work one time. I just restored one you removed in Che Guevara, which worked fine for me. You should probably get a look at Wikipedia:Citing_source#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". You'll notice that in almost no case does it recommend outright deletion. - Jmabel | Talk 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Jmabel. Actually I didn't say that the link had gone dead -- that wasn't the problem with it. What had happened was that whereas when the link/source note had been originally added, clicking on it took one to a page of photos of the La Coubre incident, Prensa Latina has since made some changes in their site so that now that link takes one to a huge number of photos, most of them having nothing to do with the explosion itself but rather depicting a speech commemorating the 46th anniversary of it. The photos of the 2006 speech are not suitable as a source note for the 1960 event discussed here nor are they of any particular interest in connection with it. Prensa Latina does have one photo on their site which specifically shows Che standing on the dock with a group of onlookers during the "aftermath", which I very much would like to be able to link to, but the way the Prensa Latina site is currently set up, this is not possible; in any case, they have placed a huge watermark over this image so that it is virtually impossible to see it. The photos on the site you found are much better, I only wish that they included the one of Che. Yes, I should review that article you refer to, I did read it a few weeks ago. I spent more than an hour this morning trying to get that Prensa Latina link to work the way it used to, and when all of my efforts had failed, deletion seemed the only solution. (But I now realize I should have sought another link to replace it.)
(P.S. I think that Prensa Latina must be working on their site today, because now the link brings up a completely different set of photos than it did this morning. Very confusing.)
Re "Involvement", I am tied up at present working on the newly-created La Coubre and Alfhem articles and trying to protect the integrity of this one. I would very much like to see some more editors become involved in this project so that it wouldn't seem that I am the only one countering the POV of Che's detractors. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, everything they have written there is accurate, but carefully selected to present Che in the worst possible light ... (I may eventually undertake to present countervailing material, if no one else comes forward to do so.) Polaris999 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk archives for User:Polaris999 (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 3 >>