Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Che Guevara
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:48, 23 April 2008.

Che Guevara

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User:Jimbo Wales, User:Jmabel, User:Polaris999, User:Redthoreau, User:Zleitzen, User:FayssalF, User:205.240.227.15 (blocked since 2006)
Completed the notifications to WP Bio‎, WP Basque,‎ WP Caribbean, WP Cuba‎, WP Argentina‎ and MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage editors to also read the Article Talk Page where most/all of the changes and concerns are being addressed. Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article reached FA status in the spring of 2006. Concerns now include WP:LEAD, WP:SS, WP:EL, and WP:NOT#LINK. In short, the article may no longer met Wikipedia:WIAFA. Feedback and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mattisse 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all involved editors and relevant WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promoted version per Dr pda prose size script:

File size: 143 kB
Prose size (HTML): 61 kB
References (HTML): 24 kB
Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6963 words)
References (text only): 7 kB
Images: 122 kB

Current version (Feb 23)

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

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

The article has taken an un unbelievable amount of cruft in External links and lists. Citations aren't correctly formatted. There are WP:MSH issues, WP:GTL issues, and WP:ITALICS just on a quick glance, the article will need a lot of basic cleanup to meet crit. 2. In looking at the content of some of the extremely lengthy footnotes, the article size underestimates the content here, since so much is in footnotes. There are fundamental prose and copyedit needs apparent even in the verbose WP:LEAD (example: Opinions on Guevara vary from being prayed to as "Saint Ernesto" by some rural peasants in Bolivia where he was executed.[13] to the view of him as a "ruthless killer" by some Cuban exiles.) This article will need extensive work to be restored to status, and that's without even analyzing it for the POV issues raised in talk page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Since there is an independent article called The Motorcycle Diaries, and since there was no independent section on The Motorcycle Diaries in the original Feature Article as there is now, could the large section that is now devoted to The Motorcycle Diaries be moved there? Mattisse 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand the contention that the current article must mirror one from 2 years ago. Articles are fluid and increase with more information with time. As for the Motorcycle diaries I would be ok with moving it if others thought that would be best, but I could also make a case for it staying put as it could be seen as the "watershed" moment in his life. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Matisse should delete all the external links if him or Sandy finds that best, and in compliance with not having them in a FA. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors should justify the presence of each link per WP:EL. An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Sandy, I see that What Should be Linked states that only "neutral" material should be linked. Thus I believe that at minimum all the opnion analysis should be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went ahead and trimmed the external links with the intention of removing non-neutral sources, and non-established media links. I feel that the remaining ones all derive from fairly credible and neutral sources and thus may be able to remain if others agree. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Redthoreau, can you justify every external link left, per SandyGeorgia above per WP:EL? To quote SandyGeorgia: An article that is comprehensive will have little need for external links, as the important content will either be in the article or in the sources cited. One of the category discouraged is newslinks. Please justify links to CNN, The New York Times, BBC, etc. If these links are important, then they would be incorporated into the article. I am going to remove the one to Time 100, as it is already a reference in the article. Mattisse 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that it's gonna be a very long and very hard haul before this article is up to professional standards on any of the following: writing, comprehensiveness and neutrality. I first saw this article a mere three or four days before Matisse took it here to FAR. When I saw it, my jaw dropped. This is not FA quality, and with all due respect to the numerous editors whom I'm sure have put many long hours of work into it, it is not even near FA quality.. Firstly (but not most importantly), I would strongly echo Matisse's concerns about WP:LEAD. The lede needs extensive reworking. It is not a summary of the article. Moreover, it makes no mention of controversy regarding Guevara (in direct contradiction of WP:LEAD). Secondly, the hagiographic tone of the article nearly completely disregards WP:NPOV. It does make some glancing mention of controversy regarding Guevara's life, but those remarks are glaring in their brevity and unobtrusiveness, like grains of salt buried far down in the sugary glaze of praise. I hope that participants in this FAR will return time and again to this key point: adhering to NPOV does not mean that some mention is made somewhere in the article of some aspects of controversy. It means instead that after reading the article, I cannot tell whether its authors support or oppose the article's subject. This article fails that test resoundingly. Where is the other point of view, as exemplified by this quote from Terrorist, Sadist, and Left-Wing Saint by John H. Fund (THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR DECEMBER 2007/JANUARY 2008):

Alvaro Vargas Llosa, author of The Che Guevara Myth, says that Che was in reality the architect of Cuba's infamous labor camps, which housed dissidents, gays, and devout Catholics. He was also a sadist who loved to simulate executions as a form of torture. "At every stage of his adult life, his megalomania manifested itself in the predatory urge to take over other people's lives and property, and to abolish their free will." Vargas Llosa writes.

There are other, more trivial problems. For example, the formatting of the refs is haphazard, but this should require only a few minutes' work to correct. But I think this article needs weeks of work. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Citing Alva Varga Llosa as an expert on Che Guevara would be like citing James Dobson on the National Organization for Women. Llosa is a long-time rightwing ideologue (just like his father, the Peruvian novelist), who now runs a think-tank out of the Independent Institute, which has a bunch of dubious people on its staff, including S. Fred Singer — the well-known global warming skeptic. it is clear that you are approaching your evaluation from an extremely bias stance for you to even mention his extremely partisan evaluation. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to agree in general with the above statement about neutrality. Should this article's name be changed to Che Guevara's icon image? Mattisse 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has deteriorated so far in every aspect of WP:WIAFA that the only viable alternative I can see at this point (regardless of whether it retains featured status) is a revert to the featured version, and starting over from there. Whatever new issues that version may have in terms of POV or tighter standards now at FAC, they pale in comparison to the mess that currently exists at that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - That would be the easiest way to take care of the problems. The more I look at the original version, the more I appreciate its writing. Mattisse 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A revert won't take care of all of the problems, but may provide an easier starting place. Reverting that far back causes other cleanup issues (deleted templates and so on), and the article would still need to be brought to current standards and examined for the hagiographic POV issues mentioned by Ling.Nut. I just don't think it's possible to restore this article to status from where it is now, and in its current state, it should have cleanup and POV tags on top regardless of whether it retains featured status. We should currently be warning our readers that what they are seeing on that page is not neutral and not representative of Wiki's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is at least one POV fork. Mattisse 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverting that far back will necessitate other types of work, and a coordinated effort to first restore/update/fix what's there (in terms of links and templates that will go dead, etc.) before reviewing/adding/changing content. You may want to give it a few days to make sure everyone is on board and that you have solid consensus and a plan for how to proceed with the restoration that a revert will necessitate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Polaris999 is discouraged and feels that restoring it and fixing it will only result in it quickly descending again into the mess it is now. For himself, he would prefer to move on. I would be willing to try but I am not an expert on the subject matter. Without User:Polaris999, I could not handle the POV attacks and such. In fact, even with him we probably could not. Perhaps we should just do as he suggests and let go of the article allowing it to face whatever fate awaits it. You probably should put whatever tags you think belong on the article. I am discouraged also. Perhaps if you reverted it, I could see how much work is involved. It could not be worse than it is now. Mattisse 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you guys talking about? I believe the article is fine now and exceeds all wikipedia standards. I feel that there is on overreaction on the suggestion of a few people (whose objectivity on the matter can not be conclusively asserted) and that deep breathes need to be taken before doing something as drastic as reverting to a 2 year old article (erasing all of the contributions of editors over the past 2 years). To me a 2 year old revert is unconscionable and extremely unnecessary and would constitute vandalism, for all intents and purposes.Redthoreau (talk TR 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what you think, then someone should tag the article with {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} since everyone else agrees both are needed. The article is not currently meeting featured standards, and if there isn't a coordinated and concerted effort to restore it, it looks to be on track to lose its star. What a shame to see such destruction; Zleitzen wrote a fine (if possibly slightly POV) article. What is there now is a POV messy article, in bad need of serious cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redthoreau, User:SandyGeorgia's opinion is the one person whose opinion really counts here. Quality management of Feature Articles is her job here at wikipedia. Her opinion is the most important in determining article quality. It is the fact that you will not listen to her that contributes to my feelings of hopelessness. Mattisse 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite true, Mattisse; I am but one participant in consensus here. Right now, there are four editors who disagree with Red; if others agree, he is against consensus, and that can be dealt with. But I am only one editor here, no more, no less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why don't you make a list of the things you believe are out of compliance if you deem it so, in order for others to use their efforts as well ? Also everyone knows that in a trial you have more than one "expert" evaluate a situation, as the presence of 2 experts in a room, usually means 2 differing opinions. I see a great deal of “sky is falling” but not much analysis on the objects which we should look out for. Also POV is a subjective matter, and I feel that some people who resent Guevara’s legacy, resent the fact that his legacy, and at present, his iconic status, is overwhelmingly a positive one. That is not opinion, but fact, as the overwhelming amount of evidence points out. Although he is not analogous to Gandhi (in the latter’s noble stance of non-violence), for the purpose of analogy, can you imagine criticisms of Gandhi’s wikipedia page being that it does not equally present the “darker side of the man”. Requiring that all of his failures as a person, also be catalogued to the point where basically on paper everyone appears to be half-villain/half hero. Some people are not viewed as a 50/50 split, however, despite the fact that they may be very despised by a select smaller group of the population. Should President Thomas Jefferson’s wikipedia page lead with the sentence: “A President to some, but a slave owning rapist to others” ,,, etc. The article in its current state I believe includes both the positive and negative legacy of the influential figure that Guevara was, and I feel that anyone with more than a ‘cliff-notes’ polarized view of the man, would view it as such. An additional problem I also see with Guevara, is that there is the individual man and then what he has “morphed into”. The two are inexplicably linked and can not be separated from one another with ease – as with most historical figures who later receive a status of veneration. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If who reverts it? Me? I'm not willing to engage in an article where there are massive issues, cleanup and POV. If regular editors aren't willing and able, I'd say tag it and move along. Better yet, wait for more editors to weigh in and see if consensus is overwhelming, in which case, Red would need to adapt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the final consensus is to revert back to the featured version, I am willing to do the revert, my edits to the article itself haven't been particulary significant (mostly consisting of external link cleanup), so there shouldn't be major problems. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to User:Caribbean H.Q. - Would you also be willing to work on the article after the revert, fixing broken links, templates, etc.? I am willing to help as I can, but I am not technically proficient regarding templates and such. Mattisse 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mattisse. I am a bit of a "templater" and would be glad to work with others, or on my own, to update those as needed. It is mainly the POV issues in which I do not wish to participate. -- Polaris999 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polaris999, we could calmly focus on a summary style biography of Che Guevara, not adding material unless requested through FAR comments. Some source links will need fixing and upgrading. I am willing to do what I can. We could take the revert and focus purely on FAR objections that are brought up. Red is welcome to help as is anyone who is willing to focus on the goal at hand. Lets get the facts of the basic biography in place. He has been dead for over half a century so not much is new from two years age. Then others can do spin offs on topics as they choose but leaving the main article in summary style. Mattisse 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make this clear for users who may not be familiar with the terminology, "spin offs" here means what are sometimes referred to as "child articles", "sub-articles", etc. Whatever name is used for them, they are separate, standalone articles, that can be linked to from the main CG article but are not an integral part of the article itself.
Another point that needs to be stressed, I believe, is the importance of accuracy. I think that each editor should be responsible for the accuracy and coherency of what he writes and that if a contribution is found to be lacking in either, or for some other reason is not in compliance with Wikipedia standards, it will be deleted with a reason given on the Talk page. Trying to endlessly correct error-laden contributions is a self-defeating approach as it only encourages careless editors to persevere in their sloppy habits. Your thoughts? -- Polaris999 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. The article should stick to the generally agreed-upon facts using sourcing per WP:V and WP:RS. If it is done now, with SandyGeorgia looking on, we can be assured of sound feedback for the two weeks. If any material is in doubt or not substantially supported in the article, then it goes. No adding of material without vetting the referencing first. Mattisse 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to work under SandyGeorgia's watchful eye is a convincing reason to proceed as soon as possible. How long do we need to wait to consider that there is a consensus for the revert, which I notice User:Caribbean H.Q. has volunteered to do? -- Polaris999 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I count, you, me, SandyGeorgia, and Caribbean H.Q. (by volunteering since he has contributed previously to the article) are in favor. I count one oppose. That is four to one. User:Ling.Nut has not weighed in since the revert was proposed. Mattisse 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User: Jmabel has responded that he will not be able to participate because of other demands on his time. User: Zleitzen is currently inactive on WP and it seems probable that he will not be responding. I am inclined to think that if User:Jimbo Wales were planning to participate he would have said so by now since he has responded to messages on his Talk page that are more recent than the one I posted there notifying him of the FAR ... -- Polaris999 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the situation. It may be a Don Quixote effort, but I would like to do what we can. At least we could give it a try. In my mind, it is better than letting it continue as it is. We could only improve it under SandyGeorgia's eye. Then, with a clean start, it would be easier to stay on top of it. I admit I had stopped watching it so I was horrified when I realized what happened. I'd be willing to do the revert if User:Caribbean H.Q. doesn't turn up again. Perhaps we could contact him. Mattisse 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I am only willing to work on this article if it has a healthy start under FAR auspices. Otherwise, I am not. I am not clear how much longer FAR will give us. Could FAR be extended if it takes much longer to get consensus? Mattisse 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, your comment above and in the edit summary that accompanies it — i.e, "can FAR review time be extended if consensus takes much longer? It will be impossible to work on under other conditions, IMO" — goes directly to the nexus of my concerns about this effort. Even if the CG article is able to maintain FA status following the FAR, once it is "released" back into the public domain I anticipate that it will soon begin to deteriorate again. This article has a long history of attracting "mad hatters" who fill it up with whatever POV happens to suit their fancy. Most alarmingly, the resultant buildup of "cruft", as User:SandyGeorgia has described it above, seems to be increasing at an increasing rate. While User:Jmabel and User:Zleitzen were active, they made extraordinary efforts to control the situation. Once they had departed, the floodgates were open, and everything would seem to indicate that as soon as the FAR is completed those floodgates will be open again because the 3RR means that, in the end, any determined editor can simply inundate and overwhelm those who attempt to control him. -- Polaris999 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have my reservations also. That is why only if there is time to develop a well established article under FAR, even an FA which I would aim for, will I consider it. I share all of your concerns. I am really tempted to take the whole thing off my watchlist right now and just not know what happens. If it goes on much longer, that is what I will do. We both know how awful it can be. We both have been painfully through it, me more with a prior article with Zleitzen, but we both know. I am becoming very uncertain whether to continue, especially as I see Red continues not to understand. It is very draining. Mattisse 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as steady, productive work is underway, FAR is usually extended (that is up to Marskell, but he has never denied it as long as steady progress is being made. On the other hand, if you get mired in edit wars and POV-pushing, he could decide to pull the plug and defeature). As far as my "watchful eye", I can check in every day or two, but can't be actively involved on an hour by hour basis (for example, tonight, I lost several hours to a sockpuppet at FAC). A revert will bring a lot of work, but if you go that route, FAR can be extended, but you've got to be prepared for the work. Almost all of the growth in the article and its TOC since the featured version is unnecessary, and that content should be spun to daughter articles now, if you're going to go the route of revert. Returning to the clean, cruft-free article that was featured would be a good start, but it will still need to be examined for POV. All sides of the Guevara story need to be accorded due weight, not just the rosy myth. With four agreeing, to one against, I'd say you have consensus, but you might still want to give it a day or so to make sure there are no surprises, causing a waste of time. Maybe in the meantime you can decide what to do about all that image cruft the article has taken on; it looks like a picture book, and you'll have to decide which to keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that although I declined [1] doing the revert so early in the FAR process, if any edit wars explode I will do the revert and try to keep a control of how the content is subsecuently managed, this is not my current intention but if it must be done to maintain the article's quality it will be done. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also might consider that there could be a better version to revert to. Maybe spend some time examing these three versions?

After that, it begins to sprawl, with lots of cooks in the kitchen. If you revert, you'll probably need to preserve the current infobox, "stuff" at the bottom of the article, and review current images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to the original FA version is probably an efficient approach, if chaff significantly outweighs wheat among contributions since the FA date. The original info is still in the article hist (has not been erased), plus one could copy/paste the text of the current version to a temporary workpage in one's user space for easy reference, if desired. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 1) Certainly, I read the Featured version some months before the flood of edits that began in January and recon that this version had some statements that needed sources but it doesn't seem to have the several POV issues that have been noted since last summer, I will make sure to the review the other two versions as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Ling.Nut. Prefer this to a drawn out discussion over "which" version to use. Each will have a favorite. Using the version provided by SandayGeorgia is preferable do deciding whose favorite version we should use. Mattisse 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polaris999 and I will wait for the revert. We are too burned out to do anything unless there is a clear purpose. Neither of us feel like working on either article in the hypothetical. We have both had horrible wikipedia experiences on these articles. We are both only tentatively willing if something happens soon. It cannot continue to drag out. User talk:Blnguyen feels an spa is involved and I do too. I am willing to do the revert, but I want to do it now. Polaris999 has many reservations in getting involved again, as do I. The longer we wait, the less likely there is that we will work on it and the more likely Polaris999 will back out. I am unwilling without him. I think by tomorrow, if a decision is not made about the revert I will take it all off my watchlist. Perhaps after then, someone can notify me if there is further relevant news. Mattisse 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless all of you are committed to a solid month's work, FAR can't really help restore this article. It's up to you all; you're the ones who are knowledgeable in the content area, we can only help, but we can't lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at all three versions that User: SandyGeorgia has identified as possible rollback points. I would be fine with working on any of them, but have a preference for Zleitzen edits in early August because I would like to preserve as much of Zleitzen's work as possible. If we go back to the original FA article, we will probably end up pasting much of Zleitzen's subsequent work into it, but then his contributions will appear under our names instead of his which does not seem fair. -- Polaris999 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That version is fine with me as I have the same desire to preserve Zleitzen's work. Mattisse 13:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the August version in detail, I would reject it as a good starting place. Zleitzen barely worked on the article between the mainpage date and that version, so it isn't mostly his work, it increased the article size with a lot of crufty lists (for example, external websites). I'd prefer either of the first two, but reject the third as crufty and too long and falling into WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of links, lists, websites, etc.) Later today, I'll put the beginnings of a revert plan (including the steps needed to restore the article) on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Whatever is the least controversial. I originally opted for the version promoted for that reason. Could we put an {{in use}} tage on it when we start? I notice someone added a POV pic just now. Mattisse 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later today I will put up a list of steps, and then if everyone agrees, work can begin (assuming there is no opposition). I'm still getting through my morning watchlist. Reverting is easy; putting the pieces back together will require some coordination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured reverting was easy as I have a copy of the promoted version in my sandbox. There are broken/dead references and pictures have been deleted, so those need to be fixed. Plus some references are not up to snuff and need to be upgraded. Is that what you mean by "putting the pieces back together"? And, of course, we will address any POV issues. Mattisse 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add it to the talk page later; the FAR need not go into detail that can be covered on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a reversion such as is going to be done to the CG article and am wondering if someone could please explain to me whether the Talk page and the Talk archives will be preserved as they are now, or will they also be rolled back? -- Polaris999 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be discussed and explained on talk; the FAR page need not go into detail. I will get there as soon as I can, but this page keeps popping on my watchlist :-) Yes, the talk page is preserved, and no, we don't need Mattisse's sandbox version; reverting is not rocket science. Someone may want to save the current version in a sandbox so it can be accsessed in the future. Now, can we please resume these details on the article talk page, and not clutter the FAR, as others will need to read through this page in the future ? The FAR is where we discuss whether the article meets WP:WIAFA and needs to be removed from WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding link to steps on article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok all steps have been taken and so far only one user has opposed the revert, I will be taking action tommorow if nothing changes. Polaris there have been simmilar reverts in Featured Articles, the latest one that comes to my mind is Link (Legend of Zelda). - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Taking action tomorrow"? Did you see that all talk page participants have already agreed to an orderly plan to revert and restore?[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have a plan after talk page discussion over who will do what. Sandy is going to do the revert itself. Mattisse 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You are welcome, of course, to join the talk page discussion! Please do. Mattisse 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should become aware of the relevant thread on my talk page, I am familiar with the plan. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to stick with my initial instincts and bow out; it's a difficult situation, but I hope the article will pull through and retain status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I no longer support the target revert date of March 2006, as only now have I realized (thru articlestats) that the target revert version does not include the work Zleitzen put in to the article. Zleitzen's work on the article began after that date, so my assumption that a revert to the featured version would be the fastest way to recover the work Zleitzen put into the article, and build from there, were incorrect. Certainly, the article has seriously deteriorated since he stopped editing in July 2007, but the March 2006 target isn't necessarily the best revert target, as Zleitzen's improvements began in August 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that anything added on or after June 8, 2007 was the result of the POV tag added by Jimmy Wales and was part of what became a revert war and not reality reflective of the careful work of Zleitzen. These were merely fruitless attempts to restore previous wording in the article. Then the article was locked down for a month. So I would not count anything on or after June 8 as important regarding Zleitzen's work. Mattisse 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On checking revision history of 2007, all but a couple edits made by Zleitzen were reversions (almost all). In addition there are two or three corrections of mess ups caused by someone's addition of material by restoring previous material and not "contributions" to the further enhancement of the article by Zleitzen. Mattisse 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My verson of the history shows a few trivial edits in July, and none thereafter in 2006. In April, May and June 2006, Zleitzen did not edit. Mattisse 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, my version of the edit history shows Zleitzen did not edit the article in January, February or March of 2006 either. Am I looking in the wrong place? His personal contribution history does not show edits to the article then either. I am confused. Mattisse 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, you are correct. That is why I had supported the latest version of the three that SandyGeorgia originally suggested for the "target" (early August) as it contained some of Zleitzen's edits. However, after you and I had expressed our preference for that version, she said that she had changed her mind and the early August version was no longer acceptable to her and that we would have to choose between June 19, 2006 and March 10, 2006 versions. -- Polaris999 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my browser crashes in trying to look at the diffs. I am not sure what point you are making when looking at the one diff my browser could handle. Could you be more specific? Mattisse 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were largely for my own use, and anyone else who cared; I really don't see much difference between Sandy's three preferred versions and the state when it was put under review. But I have not done close comparison. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am bowing out from editing the article further, as I realize that SandyGeorgia and others who counseled against the impossible POV problems were right in my case. I have done what I can. As changes are no longer being discussed on the talk page but are being done unilaterally, I have no choice. There is no longer an atmosphere of collaboration. User:Polaris999 and User:Redthoreau will carry on. Mattisse 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed Neutrality
The article now has a “Neutrality in Dispute” tag (which I disagree with, but nonetheless) ... for those that do dispute the neutrality of the article in it's current form ... what are some of the statements in the article that you believe compromise it's neutrality? Or represent a particular editor’s POV? And be very specific with exact quotes ... no generalities which will not be helpful. Also if you dispute a particular statement ... provide a “retranslation” for how you believe the same statement can be made to imply greater neutrality. If you believe a statement should be removed from the article let us know which one and why you feel justified in calling for its removal? Redthoreau (talk TR 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment about the Cuba section The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain! BuddingJournalist 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change Cuevara: to Guevara —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.149.2 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent events I think it will not be possible to resolve any of the concerns presented here, the article is currently protected from editing due to edit warring wich obviously conflicts with the stability criteria and the situation has only gotten worse since protection, there appears to be no hope of keeping this listed as a FA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, can you please provide some more elaboration on these issues. I am willing to work diligently to address all of your concerns; however that would be more easily accomplished with more specificity. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To all Editors
Where do things stand?

To the myriad of editors who have commented on this page, and who have made suggestions, I am sending out a request to have you all view the newest version of the article (as of March 27 - One month after the FAR review into effect) ... and please update your critiques, suggestions, criticisms, etc. The article has had considerable modifications, been drastically reduced in size, gone through extensive grammatical and word editing, and had a good deal of "excess" content removed, etc over the last month (thanks to the hard work of several editors). When comparing the two versions, the improvement I believe is clear from when the review went into effect. To view the difference ...March 27th 08 version ----vs---- Feb 23, 08 Version = when the Review was ordered. For comparison also see the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006. It would be my contention that the current version at least exceeds the quality of the original FA version, but it is the collective view that matters here. So please make your opinion known as it is appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place to update critiques as of March 27 (one month later)

Since the article has been altered so drastically since the original review ... I am creating this new section to voice those concerns about the current March 27th version of the article. Thank you and please feel free to make any and all suggestions. Also specifics are appreciated as they will allow editors a chance to rectify your specific concern. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of Neutrality and Cleanup ???

Since considerable edits and alterations have been made to the article in the past month since the institution of both of these tags, I feel it is prudent to re-examine their validity and gage whether editors still have specific concerns in relation to the either of these issues in the article. If you are an editor who does, and thus feel the tags should remain, please state so below and justify your reasoning. Also if you believe so, make suggestions on how your specific concerns could be alleviated. Thank you. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored

I've taken the liberty to read both versions of the article from over the last few months and I have to say that it has degraded considerably and has unfortunately been the subject of over editing which has affected the tone and balance of the article. I've restored it in part whilst removing the overly long external links and media which is now in a sister article but if it is to be condensed considerably (which it needs to) this should be done properly and without affecting the real meat of the article. It should be fairly straighforward to condense it again and try with effort to retain the balance and important points of the article. This is the best solution I believe. It is very unfortunate to see an article erode like this. I can imagine there will be people outraged and will try to revert. But I genuinely believe this is best step to keep the FA. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Remove The talk page discussion is very active, and the diffs provided above and elsewhere indicate substantial stability issues. The article is bloated with detail which could be siphoned off to daughter articles. Some sentences are unclear in terms of sourcing, relevancy, and whether such details are disputed or not. For example, it shouldn't be necessary to have a 300-word footnote quoting numerous sources for whether or not he had a medic degree. I don't think that these issues can be worked out over the course of a FAR. FAR works best when there is little controversy and a single or a small band of editors work diligently to improve an article. Often, FARs like this one have ended in acrimony. On balance, I think it's better to break this article away from this process and let its regular editors work out the article's problems over a longer timespan. DrKiernan (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) the preceding was struck out by DrKiernan 11:03 10 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Not FA material. Here are just a sample of the many problems plaguing this article. Also interspersed are some suggestions and questions.
Agreed that this is not FA material, but here come some comments and responses in any case... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the article spend so much time explaining "rough" in a footnote from the lead? Surely, his travels through South America can be properly detailed in the body of text, and trivial information (such as "Conveyances used" and "nights spent in") can be eliminated. There are also no sources given for this. Where'd that "definition" come from, and why is it even needed? "It is hoped that..."?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a compelling reason to detail his family tree (and in such confusing fashion)? Seems like a rather large digression from the main subject.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. Though the way in which his family is treated remains somewhat confusing at times. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This statement in a letter written in Costa Rica on December 10, 1953 is important because it proves that..." We should be very careful with statements like this. How about ascribing this to some scholar ("According to ____, this letter proves that")?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "by Jon Lee Anderson" Introduce him here on first use to provide context to the reader instead of later.
Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he would have to affiliate himself with the Communist Party of Guatemala." Explain further! Why did he not want to affiliate himself with them?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At that point, he turned down a free seat on a flight back to Argentina..." Again, explain further. An FA-quality biography should do more than just narrate the choices of its subject. It should seek to explain (with proper sourcing) the possible motivations behind such choices. This, of course, does not mean that we should present motivations as fact when there is scholarly doubt; attribution ("according to" is your friend) is necessary.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was during this time in June 1955" Redundant prose, no?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's going on in this sentence? "...a Comandante (English translation: Major), respected by his comrades in arms for his courage and military prowess,[17] he gained a reputation for bravery and military prowess second only to Fidel Castro himself." " Note the orphaned quotation mark. Also, why not just "(major)"? Readers will understand that that is an English translation.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "high in the Sierra Maestra" While I know what the Sierra Maestra is, some readers may not. A link would be quite useful here. Please double check that the article is not assuming knowledge such as this in other places too.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Though wishing to push the battlefront forward and frustrated by his more stationary role, Guevara spent the period developing contacts with sympathetic locals." "Though" does not work here. Also, the clauses in this sentence imply a connection, but ideas do not seem to be connected.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of note, Che..."
    • "It should be stated, however, that the aforementioned José Vilasuso..."
    • "I am innocent." Reason for italics?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "12 June 1959" Why the sudden change to this date format? And unlinked?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Guevara also travels as head of an official delegation" Why the sudden use of present tense in this paragraph?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later, Guevara..." Surely, it would be more informative to give the date here in the main text body rather than hide it in a footnote for some reason?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He believed that volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will." Huh?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Time was also set aside to write several publications." Why the passive, when the active works perfectly well and sounds so much better?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My above critique of the Cuba section still stands: The "Cuba" section could use some reorganization so that the paragraphs are chronological. More context is needed about his roles within the Cuban government (and why are the dates of his appointments in footnotes? Wouldn't they be better and more helpful to the reader to just integrate them into the main text?) A copy-edit is needed: "Guevara later served as Minister of Industries, in which post he helped", "...would drive economic growth, all that was needed was will". In my opinion, the section should discuss more about his role in the "great debate" of moral vs. material incentives. He was a vocal advocate of "moral incentives", and his philosophical musings during this time were certainly influential in Cuba, if not altogether successful in getting Cuba to adopt his particular economic views. "Guevara played a key role in bringing to Cuba the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles..." Really? What was this key role? Explain!
Most of your specific points are no longer at issue. But I agree that in this section, as others, re-writing, expansion, sourcing, and organization are needed for coherence and coverage. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some saw Guevara as the simultaneously glamorous and austere model of that "new man."" Smells like a weasel.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "arguing that conditions in the various Latin American countries that had been under consideration for the possible establishment of guerrilla focos were not yet optimal." I have a feeling this is sourced incorrectly.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Guevara previously in August of 1964 laid out why..." Explain. In a speech? In writing?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although Guevara was thirty-seven at the time and had no formal military training..." What's the purpose of this paragraph? It seems like this is leading to something significant, but eventually goes nowhere.
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised that the Congo section does not rely on Piero Gleijeses' seminal Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Probably the most comprehensively researched account of Cuba's foray into Africa. Consider relying on the many documents in Gleijeses as research for this section.
I believe that there's a move afoot to get hold of this particular source. NB though that this is far from the only missing source. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""He was a big man - well built..." Why the italics?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are there two separate footnote styles?
Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some examples of where citations should be provided but none are:
      • "He was an enthusiastic and eclectic reader, with interests ranging from adventure classics by Jack London, Emilio Salgari, and Jules Verne to essays on sexuality by Sigmund Freud and treatises on social philosophy by Bertrand Russell." Something so specific needs a source.
      • "It was during this period that he acquired his famous nickname, "Che"..."
      • The last half of the fourth paragraph of "Guatemala".
These specific instances have mostly been fixed, but plenty others remain. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • References are not formatted with any consistency.
I think this is mostly now fixed, though I'd say they are not formatted the way I would do so. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These specific sources are gone. Mostly the remaining ones are OK, I'd say. There are some exceptions. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check that all images have proper source information (many that are presumably copied from another website are missing URLs), use the correct permissions tag, and have correct fair use rationales where applicable (for example, the Der Spiegel cover image does not have a fair use rationale for this article).
    • Article does not conform to MOS standards, and the text's formatting is not consistent. In particular: superscript citations should have no space between them and punctuation, and should be placed after punctuation; spacing around em dashes is not consistent; currencies are not properly formatted; hyphens used instead of en dashes.
Agreed. Numerous MOS problems. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • External links need clean up. The numerous links to photo galleries of him really serve no purpose. Linking to a collection of archival footage of him would be much better than linking to individual videos clips. That being said, linking to copyright violations is a big no-no. In fact, I can't see a good reason for any of the links to be there. Can any of those be justified?
No longer in the article, as far as I can see. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general the article suffers from inconsistency, whether it be in formatting, or more importantly, prose. In some areas, the article reads quite well and flows like a well-written biography. However, many times, the text will suddenly jump to a completely different tone and subject in the middle of sections. BuddingJournalist 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • BuddingJournalist, I appreciate these specific suggestions. Did you intend to correct them yourself, or for others to make them? Thanks. Redthoreau (talk TR 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I took your suggestion and fixed the external links/archival footage which are now moved. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also think it should be noted that some of these suggestions by BuddingJournalist refer to a version of the article that was unnecessarily reverted to, from before the extensive editing of the past month or so. The article was doubled back to 160 K bytes this morning and has since been returned back to 74 K bytes ... and thus some of these critiques refer to parts of the article already corrected. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • BuddingJournalist, thank you thrice for contributing those detailed comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to FA version - Why should size constitute a problem? It was promoted as 138 K bytes, so why should now somebody question its size? The problem was the number of additions made, all of which are POV and crap. Also good to note that an FA about a dead person should not necessarily be constantly edited and substatially changed post its FA promotion. Of course, Wikipedia is an ongoing project, but the most important thing to do after FA promotion is MoS and techinical breaches. With all due respect to Polaris, Mattisse and Redthoreau, all of whom are apparently great editors, comprehensiveness is far more important than size. Guevara's illustrious life should be written comprehensively, regardless of how long it would be. Only after this new, short version was established, and as you call it, "weeks of edits", the tags were added in. Isn't it a shame that such an amazing article is being demoted in front of your face? Not weeks, months and even years of work have gone into that. And when one editor wants to help and restore the well written, well referenced, comprehensive version, it's being reverted? Look at the FAR, the remove votes are coming now because of that. I'm shocked! Do something guys before we lose another great FA!!! Shahid • Talk2me 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I was going to get around to copy editing it today and writing what I thought would become a good article but seems as I;m not permitted too, I wish you luck ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few things as facts are important to prevent misunderstanding: (1) The article was not promoted at 138 K --- the version which originally received FA status ---> March 10, 2006 which was probably around 60 K or so. (2) The 138 K was the version that was reported for a FA review ---> Feb 23, 08 Version. (3) Compare that with the current version WHICH HAS gone through extensive edits over the past month March 28, 08. I would contend the current version is of BETTER quality than the March 10, 2006 version which recieved FA status. Redthoreau (talk TR 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove plus Comments
I have purged the article as a whole of as many of these as possible. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is now gone (replaced by imperialism?), though I think FWIW that discussion of colonialism would not be unjustified. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The justification for the execution of torturers and other brutal criminals of the Batista regime..." Wikipedia isn't taking sides here, is it? Everyone Guevara executed was a Batista torturer and/or a brutal criminal? Every excution was justified? Stunning disdain for WP:NPOV. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed before I got to it, and has been further fixed by pointing out that the source is (or rather was) a legal advisor to the Cuban govt. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as though this is fixed: it's a quotation. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some redundancy in the WP:LEAD that could be trimmed: He's an author in the first para, then a prolific author in the last; his photo is mentioned in the first and last paras, and perhaps other things. My fingers are itching to condense this, but the changes would seem to involve a bit more than mere polishing around the edges.. so I won't do it during a FARC. Ling.Nut (talk)
Your specific points have been addressed, though you're right that there's more than polishing required here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase no longer features. FWIW, I don't see it as either an oyxmoron or NPOV. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase no longer features. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This links is gone. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about memorizing "Martín Fierro", there's a source now. (Though I don't believe it!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of Pizarro any more. FWIW, I don't see that "radical" implies "political." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note on alternate versions: this article quotes time magazine (in an improperly formatted cite, by the way) as saying "Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked if he was thinking about his own immortality." But this source gives a different account:
  • Mallin, Jay (1968). "Che" Guevara: Some Documentary Puzzles at the End of a Long Journey. Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 74-84. ... A second officer came up and asked what was the matter. The former replied, referring to a Spanish story, that Guevara "must be thinking about the immortality of the burro." (other sources verifying this version here; shades of Thinking about the immortality of the crab)Ling.Nut (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an "allegedly" in the following sentence at least. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you majorly, Ling Nut, for taking the time to make these comments as well as some edits to the article. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome... but errm, sorry I created the impression that I was finished:-) So... more serious factual discrepancy: Wikipedia says"It is estimated that a few hundred people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time" Meanwhile, this source says: "In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering 'several thousand' executions during the first year of the Castro regime." Ling.Nut (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frontpage is a horrible source. The James biography isn't that great either, as far as I can see: depends on how much the 2001 version is a re-write, but it's basically a 1969 book as far as I can see. The three reliable (if none of them very sympathetic) biographies are Anderson, Castañeda, and Taibo II. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, from the same source: "In 1960 Castro appointed Che as Cuba's "Minister of Economics." Within months the Cuban peso, a currency historically equal to the U.S. dollar and fully backed by Cuba's gold reserves, was practically worthless. The following year Castro appointed Che as Cuba's Minister of Industries. Within a year a nation that previously had higher per capita income than Austria and Japan, a huge influx of immigrants and the 3rd highest protein consumption in the hemisphere was rationing food, closing factories, and hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of it's most productive citizens from every sector of its society, all who were grateful to leave with only the clothes on their back." These and many other claims from a critic need to be either verified or disproved. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frontpage is a truly horrible source. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Humberto Fontova is not a credible source for anything in relation to Che Guevara. As much as I enjoy the humor of an author citing himself in his own footnotes ... a historian who uses the term "Useful Idiots" for his ideological opponents in the title of his book on Guevara -(and misattributes it to Stalin, = factual inaccuracy in the title is always a good hint of a books credibility)-, is hardly an objective source. Now as for the other claims, I am already convinced of Fontova's penchant for cherry picking things out of context, or merely making them up out of thin air ... so I don't find it worthwhile to follow all of his crumb trails. To me it is like arguing with a Holocaust denier or someone who doesn’t think we landed on the moon. If you do however, feel free, and I will address the claims individually.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The article lists its sources. That is the main point, and I hope we will not overlook that. Secondarily, criticizing a criticism because it comes from a critic is like criticizing an egg because it comes from a hen. Most criticism of polarizing figures (such as Guevara) comes from people whose status as critic is entrenched. That does not invalidate their comments, if they can verify them. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna wrap up my participation here; I have things to do in real life. But one last comment: The crucial role played by the American press, esp. the NYT and esp. Herbert Matthews is vastly underplayed here. Herbert Matthews really did make both Castro and Guevara, who were well aware of this, and manipulated his writing. See for example in the New York Times, 4 Jan. 1959 (p. 7):
  • 'Che' Guevara states: "I have never been a communist. Dictators always say that their enemies are communist..." [Conde, Yvonne M. (1999). Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Exodus of 14048 Cuban Children. New York: Routledge. Pages 5-7. My access to the LexisNexis news datbase only goes to 1969; may need to look at microfiche to verify this].
  • Matthews writes, "One thing must be said. This is an acknowledgement to an extraordinary young man, Fidel Castro. The American people wish him good fortune.."
  • New York Times Havana-based correspondent Ruby Hart Phillips wrote of the impact of Matthews' stories of 1957: "From that time on youths flocked to join the ranks of Castro's insurgents." Ling.Nut (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure of the point here: arguably there could be more on Matthews, though that would mainly concern reception to the Cuban revolutionary cause abroad. The question of either Castro's or Che's Communism, especially in the last 1950s, is indeed rather debatable. More surprising here is the lack of any analysis of Guevara's political philosophy, particularly his notion of the "new man." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LingNut, I understand that Matthews and the New York Times has become a convenient revisionist, and straw man “scapegoat” (especially amongst the current day far-right) for the failings of the US state department to prevent the rise of Castro and ultimately nuclear missiles 90 miles from Florida ... but the reality is not that simple. First to address your specific points:
  • That statement by Che is historically accurate (see Arbenz, Mosaddeq, later Allende and even Mandela etc). --- Also it is accurate in the sense that he never did refer to himself as a “communist”, and had never joined an official communist party. Guevara viewed himself as a “Marxist”, as he told Time Magazine when they did their Aug 8 1960 cover story on him (where he dawned the cover).

Then he explained the Cuban revolution with uncompromising clarity. "What is its ideology? If I were asked whether our revolution is Communist, I would define it as Marxist. Hear me well, I said Marxist. Our revolution has discovered by its methods the paths that Marx pointed out." "Castro's Brain", Aug 8 1960, Cover Story for Time Magazine

  • One needn't be a "flaming commie" to describe the actions of Fidel Castro during that time as "extraordinary". Landing on an island with less than 20 men alive against a force of 20,000 soldiers, and 3 years later coming out on top ... is by most accounts an "extraordinary" feat. History shows that many revolutionaries have attempted it ... but Fidel is one of the select few who has ever been successful doing it. Of note Ed Sullivan and former President Harry Truman also viewed Castro as the "George Washington of Cuba" without being "closet communists".
  • So is Phillips contending that scores of young Cubans decided to join Castro's and Che's guerrilla group after reading the NY times? Also this is an example of possible "correlation" but not necessarily "causation". "Yes she gave birth when it rained, but they necessarily are not connected". Just because young Cuban youth flocked to join the revolution at a time when Matthews was also writing positive press for the NYT, doesn't mean the two are connected. If all that was necessary was positive publicity in the NY Times to engender desire to join the military, I am sure the US military would have tried it a long time ago. Redthoreau (talk TR 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is hopelessly POV The article remains POV but one editor retains control over the article and any attempts to change the POV. For example, I believe it would be best to correct information that is 50 years out of date in the lead. From my point of view, using a 50 year old puff piece from Time Magazine to characterize our current view and beliefs regarding the Cuban Revolution and Che Guevara is incorrect. Further, there is an editor that reverts current editing by editors arbitrarily and without community discussion. Is that not contrary to the point of FAR? Or am I not understanding what is supposed to happen here? The article is filled with POV from my point of view, but I am not allowed to make little changes. Also, LingNut's attempts to change the POV has been reverted. Thanks. Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response: (1) I would encourage all editors to read the articles talk page for a more "contextual" view of Mattisse's complaints, whose accuracy I disagree with. He has shown no contradictory evidence to dispute the Time piece, and is merely venting in his usual manner by now misrepresenting the facts to suit his desires. Coppertwig has been observing all of what has gone on, and I am sure can attest to the reality of the situation. Although Mattisse’s, veiled reference to me is “cute” in nature, it is inaccurate as the talk page shows. I always provide accompanying information to back up my claims, however in this instance, he simply says “it’s 50 years old, thus it is out of date”, without providing any corroborating evidence to back up his claims, but the title name to a book. (2) Mattisse has been given ample opportunities to display what he believes is POV about the article, and also yet to do so, (why bother when he can just cast the unfounded aspersion, which is easier). (3) I want to solely deal in content, but Mattisse makes it very difficult with his constant barrage of accusations and veiled impugnation of the accuracy of my provided content. (4) Speaking of inaccurate, Mattisse already has confessed to including a story of a battle where Guevara “supposedly” fled like a coward and almost shot his own man, which for all we can tell thus far, only occurred in his head (see “Citation for story?” from the talk page / it has thus luckily been deleted). Redthoreau (talk TR 23:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the publication date which is 1960. To me that means it is reflecting the thinking in 1960. Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ? So your sole contention is that an article and interview written in 1960, about an individual living in 1960, is by definition inaccurate, when addressing the ways he was viewed in 1960? And by implication we should trust a book written 40 years later (which you have provided no information from), to "better inform" us of how Guevara was viewed a year after the Cuban revolution in 1960 ? Redthoreau (talk TR 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead should either specify that what is written there reflects a view from 50 years ago in a popular magazine at a time when the media image of the revolution had been romanticized, or the reference should be one that is a more current point of view and reflects current evaluations in the light of current knowledge, e.g. the revelations in his person diaries etc. as in Joh Anderson's book. The lead shcould be forth right, I think. Mattisse (Talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Mattisse here. The lead should summarize the article. I don't think the phrase "Castro's brain" has entered into the lexicon of scholarly work about Guevara. Anyway, many of my criticisms above still stand; I'm still a remove. Final quick comment: the lead of a featured article should not contain simple grammatical errors. BuddingJournalist 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "while being viewed" to express that this was a 1960 contemporary view, which it was (I would describe being labeled something while on the cover of Time Magazine, classifies as a good "view" of the perception of the day, at that time. Redthoreau (talk
  • Non-Controversial/Content TO DO list

There are several tasks which the article needs that are non-controversial and basic.

(1) All the books in the Source Notes and References need to have ISBN #'s (most do, but a few don't) ISBN Finder

(2) Format all the dates uniformly by Month/Date/Year using the "Middle endian format" - i.e. (March 5, 1965) (note: no 0 before the 5)+(month name spelled out) = rationale for this format being it is an English version of the article, and this is the accepted dating format for the U.S. (the largest English speaking country).

If any other editors have basic article tasks which are not controversial or content based, please post them below, and if you are an editor who wishes to volunteer to take up one of these tasks ... please let others know, so we don't have editors working on the same thing. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is Neutrality still in dispute ???

When the Neutrality tag was placed on the article, it was 3 months ago, when the article was twice the size, and before thousands of edits (by numerous collaborating editors). Also the neutrality tag was NOT part of the FAR process, but separate and came later. Do editors still have doubts about the article's neutrality in its current state as of APRIL 6, 2008? If so, what are they? (And please be specific, so we can address them). If not ... then I believe the tag could be removed. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Wiki template tag policy,

Wikipedia:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

Being that no editors have mentioned further neutrality concerns, I am going to remove the POV tag. IF an editor believes that it should be reinstated, then feel free to do so, and include a list of concerns to address, as the aforementioned policy guideline suggests. Redthoreau (talkTR 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I POV tagged it. the concerns are above, for all to see. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Coppertwig have been addressing the concerns one by one for some time now. We have a To-Do list and Coppertwig has been including your concerns all throughout the process. There is a process for a POV tag as I note ... and you are not following it. Also the tag is separate from the FAR process and came later. I asked if editors had further POV concerns and none were offered. The article is not POV, just because you may believe it to be so. You are more than welcome to assist in the editing process and include your own input. If you would like a POV tag to be included then you are supposed to list a specific list of grievances for us to address in reference to the current article. You have not done that as far as I can tell. It is not enough to post a link to a biased extremist source and then ask why that information is not included.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Nut, I have tried to contact you, but it says you are in retirement. Nevertheless, almost all of your concerns above have been addressed and fixed. The Easter Eggs are gone, "Imperialism" is gone, "Perfection" has been fixed, "Justification" comment has been corrected, Coppertwig specifically ordered the book you mentioned and it awaiting its arrival etc etc etc. I feel like we are being very collaborative, and you are non appreciative. Have you taken note of how much me and Coppertwig have addressed of your concerns? Also I would encourage you to make a specific list of POV concerns in its own section, per Wiki policy and then if me and Coppertwig or others do not address them - then a POV tag can be re-added.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errm, I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but there is no policy for POV tags.. or at least, you didn't link to one. :-) You linked to Wikipedia:Dispute templates, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. I assume it's an essay, but there is no essay tag on it... so I added one.
  • Evidence has been provided that Guavera denied being a communist (when it suited his purposes early on), admitted to ordering 'several thousand' executions, and was a failure as a "Minister of Economics." I do not see this reflected in the article... thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Nut, so if there is no policy ... then I am justified in removing your tag just as you are in placing it back. (You want the tag and I don’t – thus it is 1 to 1). The back and forth will achieve nothing ... which is why I have tried to reason with you and show you how me and Coppertwig have made great efforts to alleviate your concerns, 80 % of which have already been fixed. ---> Read the Talk Page and see. All you have offered in return is a sporadic appearance out of "retirement" and a blanket "swipe" and accusation that we have not. We have been addressing your concerns as we discover reputable sources that support your claims. You are also free to add this "new information" that you believe is not included. When making claims that are not part of the accepted record of events, the burden of proof is on you to provide the credible evidence. You say Che admitted to "ordering several thousand executions" ... well where is your credible source? The only thing I have ever seen this cited in is WorldNetDaily and FrontPage.com hit job articles or by Humberto Fontova – an extremist source that is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Never in reputable sources. If you have them ... please enlighten us ... or feel free to add the information yourself. The failure of us to include your questionable claim does not amount to POV, especially when nobody has stopped you from adding it. As for a failure as an economics minister ... feel free to provide that information as well. Nobody would argue that financially his term as Economics minister was successful … but it is debatable how much he personally brought on the poor economic performance. As for denying to be a "communist" when it suited him ... I would dispute that claim. He was on the cover of Time Magazine in 1960 and admitted to being a "Marxist". This is consistent with how he always referred to himself for the most part. There is a litany of hundreds of speeches; letters etc that he wrote and he always seemed to make it clear he believed in Marxism. I am not sure what you are getting it by claiming we are not including his denials.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I left a note on RT's talk about my lack of access to English-language books of any kind. The simple fact is this, however: This article offers nothing resembling a scholarly critique of Guavera's life. It addresses no claims. Are the claims above merely the made rants of a drooling moonwalk denier, as RT suggests? OK, no problem.. find sources that discuss these claims. Find ALL sources, not just sympathetic ones.... Che Guavera is important. we can argue about whether or not he deserves to be important, but that wouldn't change the fact that he IS important. Therefore, his life deserves real scholarship and a hard look ayt real issues, not... a very diligently-written puff piece, perhaps. The credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. That's all. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to address your concerns Ling Nut, and want readers to view the article as fair, but for me it is important that the origins of claims be credible ... so that we can have a comparative debate as to their accuracy. I am 100 % sure that someone who believes Fontova's skewed viewpoint ... will always view a scholarly article of Guevara as the hagiographical puff writing of a "Useful Idiot" (to use Fontova's moniker). I am open to any claim ... but "revised" views of historical figures, carry a heavy burden of proof ... especially if you are going to argue that 90 % of everyone who has ever written on the subject has gotten it "wrong". Anyone can write a claim on a partisan website. Relying on FrontPage.com would be like relying on a fan site like CheLives.com -- Both have no interest in historical accuracy. Could some of Fontova's claims have merit? Possibly. But since I am familiar with so many of his aspersions, and the ultimate reality of how he merely spins them out of context or makes them up, I doubt his veracity for intellectual honesty. Now as for the "sources" he cites ... I have also went digging for a great deal of his claims in the past - only to find them non-existent. However, I am still open to researching a particular claim he makes - if you believe it warrants attention.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Che Guevara en Español --- For those that speak Spanish ... the Che Guevara en Español article was a wealth of information that could possibly be incorporated in this article or other Che related articles.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At every turn, at every point, this article swallows conventional wisdom about Guevara's life — written by those professing and demonstrating their admiration for Guevara — with an occasional figleaf buried in footnotes or glancing mentions of other troubling facts. I ask you, is this scholarship? Where are the words of Leo Sauvage and Daniel James? The latter is listed twice in the bibliography, but his works are never referenced. Where are the words of Captain Gary Prado Salmon, whose company captured Guevara? He stated that the role of the CIA and especially of Félix Rodríguez in the capture and execution of Guevara was overstated by a grandstanding Rodríguez. Where is... any attempt at all.. to cast a critical (in the sense of discerning, discriminating) scholarly treatment of Guevara's life? We are blithely parroting the shtuff one could find in People magazine— and this is a shame and a blemish on our reputation (such as it is). Ling.Nut (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Conventional Wisdom" sometimes contains "wisdom" and truth does it not? The argument against it could be made by anyone with a stool and a blow horn. Usually over the course of years ... the majority of accepted opinion can morph into "conventional wisdom" ... although yes it can also transform into myth. I consider Jon Lee Anderson the pre-eminent expert on the life of Che Guevara (as he spent 5 years researching his life, traversing the globe, was given access to all of his personal writings, and spoke to every living person who ever knew him). The end product was an 800 page book that could be seen as the "Encyclopedia" on Che Guevara. Do you dispute this? To your issues. (1) Leo Sauvage was a drama critic, best known for his "conspiracies" on the assassination of JFK. His text on Guevara is entitled: "Che Guevara: The Failure of a Revolutionary." Have you read it? I have not, but will if you recommend it. What do you think he states that is missing from this article and what makes his opinion credible? (2) Daniel James is most likely a credible author on Che Guevara and I believe that his ideas should be included in the article. I can begin including his book sometime in the next few weeks if you would like me to, or of course anyone else including yourself is welcome to include his research. Obviously up to this point, no editor has deemed it worthy of inclusion. (3) As for Prado ... him and Felix have conflicting stories. As for who to believe ... I'm not sure. I guess both could be included ... but really either way ... they are the words of Che's "foes" ... and I am not sure how much validity/accuracy they have, and should be taken with a grain of salt. (4) I am not aware of People Magazine ever writing about Guevara ... is this sarcastic hyperbole or actual fact? (5) I would also include Jon Lee Anderson to have conducted a critical study ... he speaks of many unflattering aspects/executions/brutal behavior etc ... and I believe approaches the subject with great objectivity. Do you dispute this? (6)    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 05:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I have no access to English-language books. I am also supposed to be working on an <accursed> dissertation, and so do not have the time to devote to being as meticulous as I was when involved in three other FAs.. but here, in two minutes, I uncovered the "revisionist" opinions of the captain commanding the unit that captured Guevara.. and his book is never even mentioned herein! [Note: I mentioned this in talk:Che Guevara re a {{dubious}} tag I very recently placed on the article]. The word "cherrypicking" springs immediately to mind. My point is this: what else is missing? Where O where are both sides of the story? Where is the scholarship? Do we as Wikipedians want to hang the bronze star on this article, along with whatever aura of credibility that lends, knowing that it does not really take a comprehensive look at his life, knowing that it was written by those who gaze at Che in adulation? or do we wanna take the time to dig deeper? Do we owe it to the (roughly; includes bots and repeat visitors, I think) 171,039 people who have viewed the article in the past two weeks to do a far better job? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Nut, I have addressed my ?'s for the dubious comment on the Talk Page. As for your other comments above ... (1) If you don't have access to English texts, nor the time to devote, then maybe it would be prudent to wait until you do have ample time, and then you can include these others sources which you feel are legitimate but absent. (2) I believe the article does take a comprehensive look at his life. Obviously we could make it 5 times longer ... but Wikipedia also has size recommendations. (3) Your primary contention seems to be that you believe any researcher who doesn't share the same view on Guevara, must be gazing in adulation, as opposed to you who is not. In that regard, who do you believe are these researchers who are worshippers of Che which are included in the article? Obviously if you distrust a particular source you are welcome to challenge its inclusion. (4) Might it be the case that the majority of information about the life of Guevara is somewhat positive, because of the fact that probably 27 of the 32 books written on him depict that "narrative" of events? I believe this essay on undue weight helps express why maybe those who are opposed to Guevara ideologically (as you have stated you are) ... may view the popular narrative on his life as "puff", while viewing their potential fallacious and less popular “smears” as "fact."    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 08:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Undue Weight =To me the most important policy of wikipedia ... especially in reference to POV disputes.

Undue weight ---

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT

   Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi RT, I think we're all familar with WP:UNDUE. :-) I am not actually writing from a position of opposition; I am writing from profound academic skepticism. This is a meaningful difference, as i tried to explain on your talk page. My point—my main point— is that not enough has been done to ensure NPOV has been followed. Where are the quotes by the critics? There are none, none and none. Where is the critical analysis? There is none, none and none. Wanting to see them examined extremely carefully and discussed (at least the high points!) is not WP:UNDUE. :-) ... [Please see, for example, significant variations between the Wikipedia article and a firsthand account, briefly described on the article's talk page here] Ling.Nut (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, but I think the point Ling.Nut is making is that the article should, in many cases, not just state one thing as if it is fact, but mention that one source says this and another source says that which oontradicts it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ling Nut, A good deal of the critics statements probably belong in the Legacy of Che Guevara article, which was broken off from this one, to prevent long length. Just as I would contend there are not really many quotes by "admirers" of Guevara in the article at present (especially in relation to how many there actually are). I have entire books of glowing prose in relation to Guevara, and could really make this article seem like a eulogy for Christ himself, if that was my intention, which it is not. There have been entire books of poetry and 20 + songs in tribute written to Guevara - more than any 20th century figure I can almost think of. When judging the article in this context, I actually think it is pretty "fair". The problem will inevitable arise once it becomes an issue of "positive and negative" tit for tat ... that the "positive" statements on Guevara, greatly outweigh the negatives. That is not to say that they are accurate, but they are definitely far more numerous. For every detractor and criticism I can list 3 praises … thus how best to deal with this in an article with NPOV ???    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm hoping to encourage here is an editorial atmosphere which does not reject out of hand all and every source which is critical of Guevara. Unfortunately, we currently have an atmosphere that does reject out of hand all and every source which is critical of Guevara. That is prima facie evidence of systematic violation of NPOV. Such NPOV violations are really hard to spot, because they are sins of omission rather than commission. One way to spot this problem is to scan the article rather than becoming absorbed in reading it—and look for any real discussion or consideration of controversy or criticism regarding its subject. Note that I didn't say "mention" of criticism; I said actual in-depth discussion. Couldn't find any? Conclusion:hagiography, open and shut. This article cannot be retained as FAC because of the unswerving underlying POV of the editorial approach, and the resulting lack of meaningful criticism. I pointed out a few examples, they were all brushed off as crap—symptomatic, I maintain, of the very thing that disqualifies the article at this time. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ling Nut, I agree and want an editorial atmosphere, and do not reject criticisms of Guevara out of hand. Also it is not a necessity that each individual have a plethora of criticisms from their ideological enemies. You seem to be implying that all individuals are 50 % good 50 % bad ... and thus an article should read that way – painstakingly logging the diametrical positions of both sides of the coin on every issue (i.e. Guevara shot the man who tried to kill him, but some say it wasn’t really necessary?). Could it be that the reason there are not more criticisms of Guevara, is because the overall narrative is that he was more of a "heroic" figure than a "sadistic & evil" one - at least in the minds of those who examine his life and write about him. Of course there are people that make scores of attacks ... you give me any individual (regardless of how beloved they may be by a portion of the population) and I can point you to several books of full out attacks on them. For example go to Google and put in a person’s name that usually has an overall "positive" legacy ... and type in something negative and you will scores of questionable information. I believe that a possible point of contention may be that you view Guevara as you personally told me, more like "Stalin or Pol Pot" ... and to that charge I would disagree, as would the evidence. Thus I wonder whether you will ever be happy with the final product? As it may always read "hagiographical" to you. I hope this is not the case, and assume you are acting in good faith, and you are obviously an intelligent guy ... that is why I hope that we can reason with each other and create the most "fair" article as possible – about an obviously important and beloved/hated historical figure.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overgeneralization. Redthoreau has stated that Anderson is critical of Guevara, and the article currently uses for example the Time magazine article "Che: A Myth Embalmed in a Matrix of Ignorance", which is certainly critical. Redthoreau has made arguments that certain particular sources are not reliable; I encourage you to post arguments to the contrary, Ling.Nut. Redthoreau, please note that some sources may be notable and worth mentioning even if the material in them may not be true. The article need not repeat the information as if it is fact but it may be worth mentioning that certain sources said certain things, also providing contradicting statements from other sources. Readers who encounter sources saying things quite different from what the Wikipedia article says may be bewildered or think that the Wikipedia article is wrong; but if the Wikipedia article acknowledges that certain things have been said and also gives alternative accounts then everything fits together better. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking. The sole quote from the critical Time article you mention is as follows: ...Moments before Guevara was executed he was asked if he was thinking about his own immortality. "No," he replied, "I'm thinking about the immortality of the revolution." Sounds pretty heroic to me... As for claims that critical sources are biased and thus unreliable... at first glance, four (4) of the sources used in this article are from Ocean Press which publishes "books offering a radical global vision of politics and history". This publisher can scarcely be imagined to be neutral. Why then are pro-revolutionary sources okeydokey and critical sources qvatsch? I should look at the other publishers.. meanwhile, the article says "hundreds" were executed at Guevara's command, and buries in a footnote the observation that "Different sources cite different numbers of executions". But Guevara himself estimated 1,500 executions, as per Daniel James, ed., The Complete Bolivian Diaries of Che Guevara and Other Captured Documents (Stein and Day, 1968, New York), p. 226. These are the sort of glides past reality that need to be examined in great detail... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The advertising motto of Ocean Press is not relevant to the material they publish. They publish Che's diaries, manuscripts, books on him, etc which are the same from publisher to publisher. As for "cherry picking" - As I mention in the talk page ... the way to give more credibility to a statement, is when it goes against the author’s main narrative. Thus when someone includes a positive statement amidst an "attack piece" ... you can usually be sure that the positive statement has merit … as it goes against their overall narrative. For instance, when someone writing an overall positive article about Guevara, includes an unsavory aspect it is the same. In addition, I doubt that any reader will find 1,500 executions any more “negative” than 200. It isn’t like a person would think … well 200 executions are ok … but 1,500 not so much. They will either find them all legitimate acts during war time against a vanquished dictatorial regime, or genocidal acts of a madman. But yes we should include other death estimations as well if they are sourced.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a to-do item to the to-do list to "Include Daniel James reference to Che admitting to "several thousand" (or was it 1500?) executions". Perhaps Redthoreau will do this; the user indicated above a willingness to add info from that author. Our public library has "The complete Bolivian diaries of Ché Guevara, and other captured documents / edited and with an introd. by Daniel James."; I might get that out sometime in the next few weeks. Our library also has Fontova ("useful idiots" etc.). I'm thinking of reading it at some point. Adding information from a book like that would help broaden the range of perspectives presented by the article. Redthoreau, do you have any reasons to reject the book other than it being extremely derogatory (which is exactly the reason I'm seeking it out, to be able to have the article mention such an extreme perspective)? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yes I have read all of "useful idiots" and find most of the book to be an out of context rant of scurrilous accusations with little to no merit. Fontova is good about taking an actual fact - and then adding 20 layers of editorial nonsense on top of it along with insults ... spliced with a barrage of questonable sources and hardly any specific footnotes. If you feel like wasting your time, I suggest you do read it ... and then you will see why it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are credible sources for unflattering material on Guevara ... and his life features several unflattering aspects ... but Fontova is not one of them.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (undent) I must confess that I owe everyone on this page an apology— not for anything I've said (I mean, not that I'm aware of... but if I have been too sharp then I do apologize), but for popping in and out and not taking (or more accurately, not having) the time to examine all sources scrupulously. Well, I hope to have some real free time this weekend. I'm sorta mulling over the possibility of going door-to-door begging of all of my friends or acquaintances on Wikipedia for a fact-check-o-rama. Even if that doesn't pan out, I hope to be able to do some actual checking... or as much as I can, given that I only have access to online resources. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The History Channel's Documentary

Recently the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Communism) released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend that all editors watch it if they have the chance, as it helps give you a basic overview of his life and the accomplishments/controversy's surrounding it.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months at FAR, almost to the letter, every previous editor gone (scared off? afraid the article will end up at ArbCom ?), and still cleanup needs. Those strange notes still. If this isn't prohibited in MoS, it should be:

Ernesto Guevara was [born] on May 14, 1928 in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a family of Basque and Irish descent. His mother was of Basque ancestry, while his father had [Basque] and [Irish] roots.

External jumps in captions, WP:PUNC (logical punctuation), WP:MOS#Captions (punctuation), and WP:MOSDATE issues throughout: that's a 5-second flyover without engaging the prose or text or citations. The article, after all this time, still isn't cleaned up, and I'm wondering if the regular editors plan to come back, and the POV wars will erupt again, once the FAR closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you have refused to answer inquiries, and be a part of the "repair process." If you are concerned with the article (as the above post leads me to believe) then why don't you assist in the corrections? The editor you cited when you stopped is no longer editing the article, and new editors have taken his place - namely the very hard working Coppertwig, myself, and now Ling Nut is contemplating adding his knowledge. This article has gone through a night and day transformation in the past 2 months and I would contend is far better than the original that was awarded the star (compare for yourself if you doubt it). Regardless of how much work I and others put in ... there will always be the "drive by negativity" to diminish our efforts ... usually by editors who themselves have either "left" the article for good ... or by editors who have never put in any effort to fix it in the first place. You have many talents and can be a great asset when it comes to proper formatting ... why don't you help us with your knowledge ... instead of stopping by every few weeks to criticize the article, before disappearing again? Respectfully,    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 04:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that Sandy feels she has other things to be doing. Anyhow, done: I've just got rid of "those strange notes," a large proportion of which were in fact no longer tied to any part of the article text. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The technical issues here are problem enough. Let's not even get into the problems with sources and comprehensiveness. Let along any POV issues. I suspect, moreover, that the fact that the article is on FAR is a distraction rather than a stimulus. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've now spent quite a lot of time on this article tonight. I'd say really that POV issues are not very significant: the article does not consistently push any particular line, though there are awkward POV moments both "for" and "against" tucked away in various corner. Mostly, it's just badly written and poorly referenced. It needs plenty of work. It's a great pity that various editors (at least two) have walked away in frustration in recent weeks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent Work JbMurray

You have greatly improved the article, and I agree with 100 % of your recent and numerous edits. I hope that you will find more time to continue your excellent contributions, and now have no doubt that the article will retain FA status.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. But I should say that I still have considerable doubts... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please do another round (if you have time) of corrections as you did last night? At the speed that you worked, I feel that one more "barrage" might correct nearly all of the remaining voiced concerns.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 17:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you for your confidence. I'll try to undertake another sweep in the next day or so. However, you (and others) should note that among the things I did was to add a number of "fact" tags. I also discuss problems and gaps in the article's sourcing here. It will be non-trivial to fix these issues. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that JB is involved but if this article still needs massive work a couple of months on it's time to close it. Work can continue, of course, and eventually be brought back to FAC. Marskell (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Che_Guevara/archive1&oldid=1147871681"