Talk:Che Guevara

number of survivors of the attack on the Granma ?

In the section Cuban Revolution (1st subsection: Invasion, warfare and Santa Clara) Regarding the attack on the Granma as it landed, it states that only 22 survivors were able to find each other afterward.

The first step in Castro's revolutionary plan was an assault on Cuba from Mexico via the Granma, an old, leaky cabin cruiser. They set out for Cuba on November 25, 1956. Attacked by Batista's military soon after landing, many of the 82 men were either killed in the attack or executed upon capture; only 22 found each other afterwards.[58]

On the page for the 26th_of_July_Movement linked from here (1st section, top of page), in the section "Role in the Cuban Revolution" it states:

The landing party was split into two and wandered lost for two days, most of their supplies abandoned where they landed. Of the 82 who sailed aboard the Granma, only 12 eventually regrouped in the Sierra Maestra mountain range.

This page (Che Guevara) has a citation, where as the other does not. I have not located or verified if this source is correct or a credible one. This may be simply a typo in one of these two pages (22 vs 12), or there is an actual dispute on the number of survivors who were able to reunite. This should be clarified and rectified between the two pages. --LaLunaNegra (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hola LaLunaNegra, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is best not to generally use other Wikipedia articles as barometers for the accuracy of Wiki pages. With that said, the discrepancy you point out here is a valid one, with several explanations and varying results depending on the source and time frame in question. First to some of the reasons: [1] In the popular "mythology" of the Cuban Revolution (as takes place with any revolution) the "12" survivors is often repeated and thus parroted. Its origins are both a nod to the religious iconography of the twelve disciples and usually given as the number of Granma passengers who survived through the entire 1957-1959 revolutionary period. Thus, both could be correct, in the sense that 22 of the 82 men survived the landing and early stage, and of those 22, 12 survived till January 1, 1959. [2] However, you will often find sources that don't utilize this contextual nuance and will simply state that "12 men survived the Granma" - along with many others that don't even acknowledge that this difference exists. [3] Leading Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, speaks of this briefly in this ---> interview where he states that only "17" men survived, but makes note of the "Apostolic twelve" being used for historical purposes. [4] In reality, sources could be provided for "22", "17" and "12" - and in the grand scheme, I am not sure that such differences really matter, or if there is a definitive answer. I am open to possible suggestions of how to address the matter, but believe that we shouldn't spend too much article space on what would otherwise be a somewhat trivial issue.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redthoureau, thank you for the response and information. I agree that little to no space should be spent on the various numbers as it may not prove significant in the larger scheme of things, especially if there is not a definitive consensus. I was unaware of the 'nod to religious iconography' and the intentional utilization of symbolism of the 12. That might warrant a small line or two as it's rather interesting. Or, at least I found it so. Thanks for sharing that. :-) LaLunaNegra (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Che's Religion ?

It is correct for Guevara's religion to be described as "None". The consensus against it being "Atheism" or linking "None" to the atheism article is that atheism is not a religion, and that None does not necessarily mean atheist. However, "None" is fairly ambivalent. It could indicate to the reader that Che was apathetic toward religion, an agnostic or somekind of deist or pantheist, rather than the strongly anti-religious atheist he was. I would personally favour: "None (atheism)". Sir Richardson (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, I believe your concern has merit, however there is not consensus amongst biographers that Guevara remained an atheist rather than an agnostic throughout his life. Although he has several "anti-religious" statements on record, he also has several statements (including but not limited to Debray's post-mortem remarks about Che as he neared his demise in Bolivia) that suggest a possible "spiritual" composition. What is known for sure is that Guevara: [a] was baptized Catholic as a baby, [b] kept out of religious classes as a child (because of his parent's atheist views), [c] played on the "atheist" soccer team as a youth (when they divided sides between those who believed and who didn't), and [d] made antagonistic statements with regards to Christianity. However, in The Motorcycle Diaries (book) for instance, Guevara (who studied Buddha as a youth) makes several "spiritual" / "humanist" statements about fate, fatalism and destiny, while throughout his later writings, he often spoke of morality and life having a purpose. He clearly was not religious and vehemently disliked organized religion (particularly Christianity), but I am not sure there is full agreement that he could be described as being an "atheist" throughout his entire life (rather than an agnostic atheist). Do you agree, disagree? Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clarifying. I do think that it would be very much worth incorporating such information such into the article itself. Also notable is his family's protest of his image and legacy being used by Islamic fundamentalists in their agenda. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

3 technical requests for a capable editor

Resolved

Seeing as I can't figure out who to do the following tasks, can an editor who knows how - please do the following:

1. Lessen the size of the signature in the info box.  Done
2. Insert a line under the info box image caption, separating it from the rest of the box.  Not done
3. Make the first Che template at the bottom of the page expanded, while leaving the "Socialism" and "Communism" templates closed how they are now.  Done

Thanks   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To address your concerns:

1. I've uploaded a smaller version of the signature, since the image size is fixed in the infobox. The signature seems rather atypical, but if there are others like this then it may require a proper fix at {{Infobox person}}.
2. That would require a change to {{Infobox person}}, although I don't personally see why a line is necessary.
3. I've added a parameter to the navbox, so you should be ok now.

Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PC78, first thank you very much for the assistance. The signature size is perfect and the box now expanded. Of note, perhaps a "signature_size" line (like exists for the main box image) should be added to the {Person} info box to prevent future occurrences of this problem. As for the dividing line between the caption and other information, that was probably a result of my own neuroticism, since that line was previously there in the {Revolutionary} info box. To me it just looked a little neater that way.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly Capitalism or Capitalism in lead ?

Resolved

This isn't a huge issue, but don't you think it would be more accurate for the first time user? Maybe Che did talk about all forms of capitalism converging into a final form of monopolism, but how would a new user know this? (For example, I didn't know he said that!) Tell me what you think? ValenShephard (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Valen, a potential problem with simply using "capitalism" is that Che didn't believe such an economic structure was ever really possible, arguing that it would always mutate into monopoly capitalism. Che rarely used the term "capitalism" without including a mention of "monopoly capital" or the "oligarchy" that he argued would always develop within a capitalist economy. Che disputed the fundamental ethos of the capitalist model and believed it to be a mirage, thus it would be somewhat inaccurate to list "capitalism" itself, as he never believed this really existed. Che argued that a "free market" has never really existed, and couldn't exist, as he contended that the state would always merge and collude with with the capitalists who control the means of production to create either a fascist, corporatist or oligarchical model (and thus become what Lenin described as monopoly capitalism). The only solution to this Che argued was Marxist world revolution. I understand your concern and argument; however I'm not sure of the best way to display this nuance. Have any ideas?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put. I am just trying to see it from the eyes of reader who doesn't know much about the subject, what impression would they get if they click on the monoply capitalism article? I think they wouldn't really grasp the issue, because the monopoly capitalism article is quite specialised, written mostly as a Marxist perspective. I feel that a new user wouldn't be able to grasp it, without first having some kind of understanding of capitalism in the first place. Would it be misleading of the facts to simply use capitalism? Or maybe a compromise of some kind, such as: we use the link to 'just' capitalism, then in brackets put (which he thought would eventually...) to explain what you just detailed. I think that might be the best of both worlds; the new user gets the link to something which would be educatative and not too specialised or narrow, and others would be able to get an understanding of Che's ideology (and some could just ignore that extra detail). How does that sound? ValenShephard (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a possible resolution, although I'm not sure about it. I would suggest we wait a few days and see if anyone else has additional ideas, and we can both also think of further solutions.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These two concepts, although related, are not the same. Therefore if Guevara used the marxist view of the hypothetical final stage of capitalism then this is the link we should provide. Trying to simplify this for a hypothetical reader is slightly on the OR side and can also be misleading. It is also not a hard concept to grasp. As a result we might even educate a reader or two. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be misleading if we said: "capitalism (which he thought would always degenerate into monopolism etc etc)" and for "monopolism", we link to monopoly capitalism. I've read text from Guevara, and I have seen him use simply "capitalism" frequently. I am not fully convinced that he mostly used monopoly capitalism as his words of choice, but even so, doesn't monopoly capitalism fit under capitalism? I think it would be best to offer both, with an explanation for people who want to grasp his ideology on a more complex level, are catered for also. ValenShephard (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering what you would think of putting: "capitalism (Which he believed would always lead to monopolism)"? For monopolism we link to the article of Monopoly Capitalism. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, I would be ok with putting:

His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of capitalism, monopolism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution.

Thoughts? Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with that. I'll wait a couple of days or whatever to see if anyone else has any opinions, then I'll implement this change. Thanks for the discussion. ValenShephard (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

State capitalism

Can anyone say when Che learnt that Cuba was taking the path of State capitalism? Did he comment favorably or negatively about this?86.42.193.47 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, Guevara favored the elimination of all "material" incentives in favor of "moral" ones, and thus disagreed after leaving as head of the National Bank, with the Cuban government adopting certain aspects of state capitalism. However, Guevara's criticisms of this "mutation" (mostly in private) were primarily aimed towards The Soviet Union. In Guevara's essay "Thoughts on the Transition," he theorized that the troubles of the Soviet economy went back to the introduction in 1921, under Lenin's leadership, of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which "opened the door to the old capitalist production relationships", noting that "Lenin called these relationships state capitalism" ---> see this article. An excellent book if you are truly interested in the subject, is the 2009 work Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution by Helen Yaffe. She briefly discusses the topic in this ---> 2006 article. Possibly there could be an article that solely examines the "Economic Philosophy of Che Guevara" one day on Wikipedia, and Yaffe’s book would make a good initial foundation.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's interesting, but Yaffe ignores all the Soviet subsidies into the Cuban economy. I was a Soviet citizen, now living in "the west", and I prefer the banal slavery of the supermarket to the Soviet slavery that I lived under. Che was preparing a more refined slavery, or so it seems now. You have no idea what it was like, how it crushed you, to be made to live daily towards an ideal that was never, ever realized. Che's system would still have relied on coercion, ultimately, and somehow the article should make that clear. Otherwise people will only consider the nice-sounding parts of his theory and forget the "downside".86.42.223.139 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, remember Che left Cuba in 1966, long before the Soviet subsidies became a mainstay of the economy. Moreover, although I have empathy for your own personal situation, it would be considered WP:OR and is ultimately irrelevant to the construction of this Wiki article. It is our mission as editors to echo the reliable sources and how they present the information, not to WP:Soapbox with considerations to our own personal history, out of fear that others might be drawn to certain ideas that may have caused us personal tragedy (this would be the same if an editor moved "to the West" and wanted to espouse on how much they disliked living under Capitalism as well). Specifically, as for this article, it does mention how Guevara implemented his system of moral incentives, which was ultimately unsuccessful, and eventually abandoned (as the article notes). Lastly, as a possibly ironic side note, near the end of his life Guevara spent 5 months in 1966 living clandestinely in the Czechoslovak village of Ladvi before departing to Bolivia, and expressed disillusionment about the "Soviet model" that had been implemented there – reportedly telling his friend Ulies Estrada, that "Everything is dull here, grey and lifeless. This is not socialism, it is its failure."article Thus you and Guevara might be in somewhat agreement on the realities of life in the Soviet Union, although you would disagree on the ultimate "cure".  ----  Now, hopefully we can move on from an albeit interesting discussion, which unfortunately doesn’t really have a place on an article’s talk page per WP:Forum.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that coercion and force would have been used by Che, and those like him, and that is very relevant. Talking about soapboxes, you come across as a fan of his, but shouldn't we all be as neutral as possible on Wikipedia? I'll leave it here.86.42.194.80 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 86, of course he used "force", that is usually what armed revolutionaries do. As for "coercion", the article points out that:

... each worker was now required to meet a quota and produce a certain number of goods. However, as a replacement for the pay increases abolished by Guevara, workers who now exceeded their quota only received a certificate of commendation, while workers who failed to meet their quotas were given a pay cut.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that the article fails to acknowledge these two aspects. As for neutrality, and as a historian, I take the policy of WP:NPOV very seriously, and do my best to remain as objective as possible. My own personal nuanced views on Che are irrelevant and I try to keep them from tinting my edits - but I can tell you that most of the unflattering aspects in the article were added by myself. However, I recognize that to some people, anyone not universally and hyperbolically denouncing Che as a "Commie-terrorist-butcher-killer-murderer-scumbag" is obviously "a fan", but there is not much I can do to assuage these people and still follow Wiki policy.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Corpse photo not appropriate

imho corpse pictures are not appropriate for biography articles. just my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.222.130 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP 198. The ---> utilzied corpse photo in question, is a well known post-mortem image of Guevara. Moreover, if it offends your sensibilities, I would point out that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and that the picture itself is not bloody, obscene, or shocking at first glance (if you didn't know better, you might not even realize he is dead in the photo). There are some instances where a particular post-mortem photo may be inappropriate or tasteless in an Encyclopedia, but I would contend that this is not one of them.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Using Humberto Fontova

The tone of this article strikes me as a bit too hagiographic. I added the following to the single paragraph of criticisms of his legacy:

Humberto Fontova describes his apparent thirst for killing: (1)

"When you saw the beaming look on Che's face as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad," said a former Cuban political prisoner Roberto Martin-Perez, to your humble servant here, "you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara." As commander of the La Cabana execution yard, Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man (or boy) by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Che's second-story office in Havana’s La Cabana prison had a section of wall torn out so he could watch his darling firing-squads at work.

This was removed within a day or so by User:Redthoreau, who cited WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue as the policies justifying removal. I suggest that the highly negative view of Guevara presented by Fontova is neither the view of only a tiny minority (WP:Undue), nor a conclusion that could not be reached objectively (WP:NPOV). On the claim of WP:Fringe, Fontova is something of a polemicist, but even his critics acknowledge (as cited in his own Wikipedia entry) "that 'taken in selective doses', [Fontova's] book puts 'some well-placed holes in Che’s presumed humanism and military competence." I suggest that the Fontova quote injects some much-needed balance into the article. At the very least, it illustrates a very negative and not uncommon view of his legacy -- and this section was, after all, about his legacy. Yaush (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)'

WP:VERIFY ---> Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources.
• Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
• Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Hello Yaush. As the editor who reverted your insertion of information from a Fontova web editorial calling Guevara a "Guerrilla Doofus and Murdering Coward" in the title, I wanted to address an array of issues related to Humberto Fontova's exclusion as a source for this article. Of note, the below comes from someone who is very familiar with Fontova's work and owns/have read his books and writings on the subject:

(a) Previous WP:Consensus ~ The issue of including Fontova in the article pops up once every year or two when an editor comes across one of his web essays and thus arrives here at the talk page upset that this article is obviously "hagiographical" in comparison to Fontova's unashamedly negative editorials. However, Fontova's works, which are almost universally written in an hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone, have been repeatedly rejected in the article and on the talk page going back as far as ---> June of 2005. Moreover, long time established editors such as Jmabel compared it in August of 2005 to "citing Paul Krassner on Richard Nixon" - while Polaris999 ---> shown here, a key early author of this article, noted in 2008 that Fontova's "bombastic tone" with "puerile" book title (i.e. the useful idiots who idolize him), would make it "a travesty that he would be cited as an authoritative source in any encyclopedia."

(b) WP:NPOV ~ Fontova writes in a bombastically polemic and editorialized style, while referring to those people whom disagree with him as "dingbats", "moonbats", "useful idiots", "imbeciles", "morons", and "boobs" etc. His near weekly anti-Che editorials are written solely on hyper-partisan right-wing blogs and websites for the purpose of attacking Guevara, and explicitly exclude all information and context that is contrary to that narrative. Another tactic Fontova employs is to take an accepted fact about Guevara, and then lace it with a barrage of sophomoric insults and innuendo - unbecoming of anyone who would be utilized as a encyclopedic reference. For instance, Fontova's barrage of hyperbole leads him to specifically describe Guevara as an "assassin", "sadist", "bumbler", "fool", and "whimpering-sniveling-blubbering coward" who is "revered by millions of imbeciles." Other descriptions that Fontova often lobs against Guevara is that he was "shallow", "boorish", "epically stupid", "a fraud", a "murdering swine", an "intellectual vacuum", and an "insufferable Argentine jackass ---> article. Now admittedly, a fair number of objective criticisms can be lobbed against Che Guevara (and are in the present article), without having to frame them in an overtly subjective manner with large doses of profanity, ad hominems and sarcasm. Fontova is literally the textbook epitome of violating WP:POV and more importantly, is not considered one of the "main scholars and specialists on the issue" per Wiki policy.

(c) WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE ~ Setting aside his immature vernacular and the fact that Fontova (---> pictured here on c-span wearing his crossed out Che t-shirt) has previously described himself as being ---> "incorrigibly incorrect" on his own website; Fontova often reports on unverifiable events whose only source is himself. As someone who has tried to track down sourcing for some of his more "exceptional claims" per WP:Verify, it is frustrating as he'll often send you in a circle by citing his own book, which will then cite his own web essay, which will not have any citations at all. There are also dozens of unsavory quotes that Fontova exclusively attributes to Guevara, which do not appear in any other publication before 2005 when he began writing on the topic (38 years after Che's death). Predictably these quotes are now parroted by an array of writers who dislike Guevara, but their original sourcing always leads back to Fontova, with no original primary source given. Furthermore, almost all of the biographies on Che Guevara cited in the article have been peer reviewed in academic journals by scholars in the field, while Fontova's work has not. This is important because many of Fontova's claims do not appear in any of the other 120 + books on Guevara = (his argument of why this is would be that there has been a conspiracy of silence amongst 90 % of the World's press and publishers) - but Wikipedia does not grant Historically revisionist conspiracies the same coverage as other sources.

(d) WP:Reliable & WP:SOURCE ~ To those who may question whether I (along with Rolf Potts & Dow Jones Newswires' Michael Casey who have written on Fontova's style) am merely misrepresenting the facts out of context, or that maybe Fontova's work hasn't gone mainstream simply because of low exposure, it might be relevant to ask if his work fits the description of someone to cite in an Encyclopedia? What is indisputable is the fact that as a blogger Fontova has done all of the following:   uploaded ---> spoof mocked posters of Che,   posted pictures of a dead Guevara coupled with the offer that we ---> "celebrate the picture above!",   made fun of Che's daughter Aleida Guevara for being overweight by saying that she ---> "oinks" instead of speaks,   uploaded a t-shirt with President Barack Obama's face morphed as Guevara with the title ---> "I’ve Chenged",   posted an execution photo of Guevara with the description ---> "Murdering, Cowardly, Bumbling Swine",   referred to himself as a ---> "raving crackpot" in relation to his work with the "No Che Day" campaign - held on what he describes as "the glorious anniversary of Che's whacking",   referred to the day Guevara was killed as ---> "a GLORIOUS Anniversary!!",   and lamented that it was ---> "Too bad Cuba had a Batista instead of a Pinochet in 1958" - who in his words (with relation to Pinochet's suppression of opposition) "managed the messy business with (only) 3,000 dead" - which is ironically about 2,800 more deaths than the anti-Che Free Society Project even attributes to Guevara.

(Question) ~ Now with all of that said, would any editor like to provide rationale for why the above would not disqualify him from being used as an authoratative Encyclopedic source on the general topic of Che Guevara?

Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the Iraq war, there are many well written and thoroughly researched essays describing George W Bush, Tony Blair, and my own country, Australia's, Prime Minister, John Howard, as murderers and war criminals. Many of these have been written by well known writers. None of this material is in their respective Wikipedia articles. Why do it for Che? HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The linked Fontova essay, which I acknowledge was highly polemical, was my first exposure to Fontova's work. It was not, however, my first exposure to writings critical of Guevarez, and I found the Martin-Perez quote interesting and relevant. I thought it nicely encapsulated the brutal side of Guevarez. Do you disbelieve that Guevarez had a brutal side, or that Martin-Perez actually said what was attributed him by Fontova, or that Martin-Perez really believed it?

I'm also not quite sure what George Bush, Tony, Blair, or John Howard have to do with it. If there is a credible argument that they are war criminals or murderers, seriously advanced by a non-tiny intellectual community, then shouldn't that appear in their biographies? Or are you asserting that the highly negative view of Guevarez reflected in the quote is not serious held or is held only by a tiny intellectual community? Yaush (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see well attributed positive AND negative comments about all the people listed above. I simply know that it's not going to happen any time soon with the Bush, Blair and Howard articles. I guess this is at partly because of WP:BLP. For it to appear in this article seems a classic example of the intrinsic biases in Wikipedia. We can say nastier things about dead people, can't we? Maybe the other articles will swing that way after their deaths. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Che Guevara and race

Anyone want to incorporate this section or information from Che Guevara and race into this article? Should it at least be in the "see also" section? People seem to think he was a mean 'ol racist so they can just read decide for themselves. Richard Cane (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)