![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
![]() | April 2 - May 23, 2008 |
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)
Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested: In this edit, a "clarifyme" tag is removed from the sentence "Guevara remains a controversial and significant historical figure.". -- Coppertwig ( talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Re BuddingJournalist's comments at the FAR. Note that, as Redthoreau pointed out, many of these comments may be based on an older version of the article that was temporarily reverted to; e.g. perhaps the state of the article at 17:21 28 March 2008 (UTC). Here I'm condensing/paraphrasing/commenting on some of BuddingJournalist's comments. If/when you believe an item on this list has been corrected, I encourage you to mark it in this list as done. When I sign a "done" it may mean I did it myself or that I've verified that it's been done.
Extended content
|
---|
in the older version of the article it said: Current version:
I suggest something between these two versions: Guevara decided to settle down in Guatemala so as to "perfect [him]self and accomplish whatever may be necessary in order to become a true revolutionary".<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26. "En Guatemala me perfeccionaré y lograré lo que me falta para ser un revolucionario auténtico."</ref>
|
End of list of BuddingJournalists' comments as condensed/paraphrased and commented on by me. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BuddingJournalist seems insistent that the Cuba section should use this book as a reference: Piero Gleijeses' Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Does anyone have it? If not, I might order it through a second-hand bookstore. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
i searched for it in india its not available-- UD ( talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a list of Ling.Nut's comments, condensed, paraphrased and commented on by me. The original comments by Ling.Nut are at 14:44, 24 February 2008 plus many comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara between 13:28 29 March 2008 (UTC) and 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC). I encourage people to mark things in this list as done if/when they are. When I sign things as done, I may have either done them myself or verified that they've been done.
End of list of Ling.Nut's comments from FAR as condensed/paraphrased/commented on by me. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the reformatting of references I'm planning to do. Let me know if there are any objections.
Currently we have "Content notes", "Source notes" and "References" sections. This plan involves the second two of these.
Plan: Make the "Source notes" section into a list of short references (just author, year and page number, unless more info is needed to distinguish two similar sources), and list complete bibliographic information in the "References" section. Remove the tag at the top of the "Source notes" section which asks for ISBN numbers; perhaps move it to the "References" section or just delete it. Make links from the notes in the Source notes to the items in References as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references.
Therefore, within the text of the article, material within <ref></ref> tags will be just author, year, and page number (unlsss...), along with a code for linking it. People adding new references should then follow this format (making sure the full info on the reference is in the References section.)
I believe this plan is consistent with SandyGeorgia's message of Feb. 27, and with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 15#Cite.php. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
e.g. "Miller 2005, p.23." (From Shortened notes link.) -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
For convenience, when the author's name is spelled with accents, I spell the cite id without accents, e.g. "<cite id=refPena2004>Peña, Emilio Herasme ..." -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
About there being two types of footnotes: There were also two types of footnotes when the article was originally approved as a featured article. I would be open to discussing changing the footnote style, but I would like to point out that there are advantages to having two types of footnotes. I've seen at least one book with more than one type of superscript-indicated note used for different purposes.
With the use of cref and shortened ref notes, the wikitext remains uncluttered. The ref notes have the advantages that the superscript is small and unobtrusive and that there is a wikilink not only down into the footnote but also back up into the text, which can be useful for various purposes: one might start from the footnote and try to find where in the text it's used. Having two different types of footnotes serves the reader by letting the reader know what type of information is to be obtained. If the reader wants to know the reference for verification, the reader can click on the numbered footnotes, and if the reader wants additional information, the reader can click on the named footnotes. It saves the reader time and frustration to know before clicking which type of information will be seen.
SandyGeorgia, in reply to your edit summary "one of the messiest articles I've seen on Wiki, don't small the refs twice, they become illegible, something should be done about these notes": Note that I'm in the process of reformatting the references as described in this section. I haven't gotten very far yet -- I only started approximately a day ago. I'm open to specific suggestions about how to do it. I'd appreciate it if you would specify what you mean by "messy" in your edit summary so that we can do something to address the problem. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that citations be formatted as follows. It's similar to the way most are already formatted, but requires moving the year to immediately after the author's name, where I think it's easier to find, and also changing the use of italics (and bold for the volume number, and possibly other details) in the case of articles. Currently, the year is usually given near the end, just before the ISBN number. Also, adding a period after the ISBN number. These examples are from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style; the first is for a book, the second for a journal article (or chapter of a book etc. would be similar).
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that when references are given within the content notes, that they be formatted like this: ([[#refGuevaraLynch2000|Guevara Lynch 2000]], p. 26.) (For an example, see the source note I just created called "perfeccionaré".) This is so that the reference will jump immediately down into the References section. If <ref> tags are used, then once the wikilinks into References are added, the reader would have to make 3 jumps, through all 3 footnote sections, to find out what the source is; I think that's too much.
I furthermore propose that the Content Notes be put into alphabetical order. Currently they seem to be approximately in the order they appear in the text. I think it would be much easier to maintain them in a correct order if they were alphabetical. It may also (arguably) be easier for the reader to find a given note in the list if they're alphabetical.
I would appreciate comments on the above proposals. In particular, if anyone objects to any of the format changes I suggest above, please say so. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(speaking of the time when he met Hilda and was introduced to a number of people including a number of Cubans) "Au Mexique, on fait précéder le nom des Argentins de Che. Ernesto n'a pas failli à la règle : il est devenu el Che Guevara. Quand Nico López, les Roa et les autres Cubains commencèrent à le fréquenter, il répondait déjà à ce sobriquet. Pour simplifier, il devint Che. Cette syllabe ... commence ou ponctue les phrases. De fait, Ernesto se démarquait de ses amis latino-américains en servant du che à tout bout de phrase." (ellipsis mine. Translation: In Mexico, they put "Che" in front of the names of Argentineans. Ernesto was no exception to this rule: he became el Che Guevara. When Nico López, the Roas and the other Cubans began associating with him, he already answered to the nickname. For simplicity, he became Che. This syllable ... begins or punctuates sentences. In fact, Ernesto distinguished himself from his Latin-American friends by using che at the end of every sentence.) |
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Continuation of discussion from Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 16#Analysis of wikilinks.
I went through the multiple links listed at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7 (2nd section) and reduced the number of links of those I thought needed to be reduced. Mostly I didn't reduce them as far as the numbers I'd originally suggested; seeing their context in the article I decided to leave many in. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What are other editor’s opinions on the inclusion of the Timeline picture? I remember User:Polaris999 had told me that he created it for the article in hopes it would improve its FA status, but I have yet to see Timelines in very many articles of featured historical figures. I believe that the amount of space it takes up, might not equate to it's informational value, but would be hesitant to remove it without consulting other editors, and because of the fact that User:Polaris999 (an editor I have great respect for) included it. Redthoreau ( talk TR 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I'm removing this broken link from the Moynihan reference. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my contention, that the article is coming out very nicely, and becoming vastly improved from even a shirt time ago, mostly thanks to the organizational skill and direction from Coppertwig. Let's keep it up. Redthoreau ( talk TR 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
I removed the following reference(s) from the article:
The following references don't seem to appear in the current version of the article, though they were there earlier:
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Text "location" ignored (
help)</ref>☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The following reference was added April 1. The same publication is already listed in the References section, with no web link. I see no reason to think the website is not violating copyright, in which case we should not link to it.
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just taken this one out for similar reasons, Online at Sozialistische Klassiker (was given as link for English translation of Guevara's Algiers speech); possibly copyvio, plus the link goes to some sort of home page and it's not immediately obvious to me how to find the desired text. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This link has been deleted from Wikisource as a copyvio, so I'm removing the link here: English translation of complete text: Che Guevara's Farewell Letter at Wikisource. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether this link is a copyvio, so I'm removing the link. (Diario del Che en Bolivia.) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just to explain why I removed the Cuban flag from the infobox, while Che was a dual-citizen he had no other direct relation to Cuba, that being linked by birth or ethnicity, the tendency troughout Wikipedia has been completely removing flags from the infobox, but for now I am following the one we had prior to that with dual-citizens wich was to only use the one from the nation of birth or in some cases the ethinicity when the person was born in a country by a matter of chance. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7
As I think it should be: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7
However, SandyGeorgia has stated that the latter is "too small" to read. I have looked for information on official wikipedia font sizing ... but have been unsuccessful. Can anyone provide me with that? Or do other editors have an opinion on the reference font size? To me the smaller is preferable and still legible, but I am willing to be swayed / and willing to relent to concensus. Redthoreau ( talk TR 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Changes already in progress, based on consensus:
Further proposed changes; comments welcome:
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Redthoreau had already indicated acceptance of the above suggestions. Further suggestion:
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a replacement for List of to-do lists. This is for collecting the few items not done out of some other to-do lists, so that the original to-do lists can be archived.
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Che Guevara#Wanna help?. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You are going to need to address the forced image sizes in this article. They are generally frowned upon, according to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Skomorokh 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The objections listed in the open FAR have not been addressed. They are not crossed off as done. This article is still in Featured Article Review and the main overwhelming complaint was POV issues. I do not see that they have been taken care of. No one is paying attention in FAR as the impression is that others are not allowed to edit this article. – Mattisse ( Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is taken almost word-for-word from the source and, if kept, needs to be rewritten or presented as a quote: " He called for the diversification of the Cuban economy, and for the elimination of material incentives. He believed that volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth and that all that was needed was will. To display this, Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane, as did Castro." Source given is [2]; see the part of that source under the section heading "Popular but ineffective". --☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Today I took care of the 4 remaining citation needed tags. None of them remain at this time.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
These ones were commented out in the wikitext. I'm removing them. (About.com and geocities: not reliable sources.)
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the correct spelling of the author's name here: it was given in this article as "Aleksandr Alexeiev in Cuba después del triunfo de la revolución ("Cuba after the triumph of the revolution")". I did some Google searches and found another publication referencing it, spelling the name as "Alekseev". I've changed it to the latter spelling. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Heikal's account of Guevara's conversations with Nasser in February and March of 1965 lends further credence to this interpretation. See Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein. The Cairo Documents, pp 347-357." was added by Polaris999 on 17:58, 3 October 2006. So it seems to still be in correct context: it appears to be referring to Che believing that Africa was imperialism's weak link. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says, "After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine consulate, where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to Mexico." Maybe I'm confusing events of different places and time periods, but I think Cormier says that Che was in prison during this time period. On p. 110, it recounts 30 men including Che being taken prisoner. Fidel was there and called to the men to surrender peacefully: "C'est à Cuba que nous nous battrons, pas ici." ("It's in Cuba that we will fight with each other, not here.") Che was then interrogated, with an anglophone in the background whom Che supposed was an agent of the FBI or CIA.
In an earlier version of this article, it said that Che turned down a free plane ticket to Argentina, and someone complained that the article should explain why Che did that. I think I found the reason. I think (but am not completely sure) that this refers to the same event. Cormier p. 111: they're talking about how to get Che out of prison, and Fidel argues that Che as an Argentine is not really involved, but Che is quoted as saying "Je suis lié au destin des Cubains, je reste avec eux." ("I'm bound to the fate of the Cubans; I stay with them.")
Some other bits of information that there might not necessarily be room for in this article: The Granma was only designed to hold about 25 people, and they were 82, so they had to leave behind a lot of supplies. (Cormier, p. 121.) On board the Granma, Che suddenly clapped his hands to his forehead; he had forgotten his asthma medicine: it was on the quay with the supplies which had been deemed inessential. (p. 122.) On Dec. 5, 1956, when they were attacked, Che's firearm was not one of the best. He had felt himself physically diminished by an asthma attack on the voyage, and had thought that the best firearms should go to the men who were fit. (p. 126.) Nico López had been the first member of the group to call Che "Che" (p. 128). ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wikilinking some author names in the references list that have Wikipedia pages. For these ones, I've wikilinked but I'm not sure whether I have the right person: Ariel Dorfman, Edmundo Murray. For these ones, I haven't wikilinked because I don't think it's the right person: Ahmed Ben Bella, Edward George, Will Grant, Joseph Hart(wrong century), Michael Moynihan (journalist)(see others by that name at Michael Moynihan) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Has really been on the rise the last few days. I wanted to add semi-protection (as it was before) but am unable to and thus can't stop the tide of IP accounts. It's a shame that someone can besmirch an encyclopedia with vulgar sexual language ... but the idiocy on the "internets" never ceases to amaze. However I have a question for other editors ??? How do you report a repeat vandal or have them blocked ? (There should be a "Report" button or something). Thanks and remember to help out by placing the page on your watch list and if free ... check it a once a day for the vandals.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear colegues: My name is Roblespepe, and I am the main editor of the Che Guevara article in the w:es. I want to tell you that the name writen in this article ("Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch") is wrong:
You can verify what I'm saying in the official born document of Che Guevara (legal name is written in the left margin). Kind regards, w:es:Usuario:Roblespepe.17-04-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblespepe ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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
13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ling Nut, since you added the Dubious tag on the statement ... can you please provide your rationale, so we can address and alleviate it if possible? Thanks.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
05:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
undent) What I want, of course, is for someone to read the book by Prado for significant variations from the article's current version, and incorporate them, citing as necessary. the source is given above (Ryan 1998, p. 134). Quote follows:
Varying accounts of Guevara's execution reflect various personal interests. Rodriguez, extrovert, soldier of fortune, and above all Cuban exile and bay of pigs veteran, gives a highly dramatic account of his own involvement with Guevara on October 9...[ellide]...Rodriguez even affirms that he was considered to be in command of the Bolivian contingent when Guevara was executed; no one else has substantiated this claim... prado will have none of it. he states that although he himself had returned to the ravine, Zenteno as at La Higuera and in command atthe time of the execution. Rodriguez, prado says, identified Guevara, took pictures of him, and photographed his diary, nothing more, just as the CIA had little to do with the campaign in general. he says Rodriguez returned to vallegrande after a few hours, which if true would mean that he could not have been involved in the execution the way he says he was...This is more than a historical quibble. In Prado's view, R. is grandstanding, claiming undue credit not only for himself but also by extension for the CIA and the United States...
Here we see the roles of Rodriguez and the CIA explicitly minimized by a firsthand accound; in the article, the lead sentence explicitly states Rodriguez led the capture, and could easily be read to imply that the CIA in fact led the entire operation. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Listed in references section, but not used in inline citations. Should we remove these? Do we have any idea which, if any, of the ideas in the text are supported by these?
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the words "fomenting" and "inciting" as in "fomenting revolution" are POV and need to be replaced with neutral words.
foment: "to encourage or instigate (trouble, discord, etc.), stir up." (The Collins English Dictionary. 1979, 1986, 1988. ISBN 0 00 433134-6. William Collins & Co. Ltd. Great Britain.)
Here are some possible alternative words (with the help of a thesaurus and a family member). I've classified them into positive, negative and neutral. Some are borderline or arguable. A good test: Can you imagine Che Guevara saying with a straight face, "I think I'll go and start fomenting revolution now"? Can you imagine Che's detractors saying, "I don't like the man -- all he does is give birth to revolution"? A neutral term should be able to fit naturallly into both these sentences.
I particularly like "initiate", "stimulate" and "promote", but many of the others in the neutral list are OK too. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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
22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As per Sandy's FAR comments, can we standardize the nonstandard citation style in this article? I've disliked it since the first second I laid eyes on it, and that would be true regardless of the article's topic... but I have been operating under the assumption that it reflected some sort of special consensus arrived at earlier... Is that the case..? Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Very many of the works listed under "References" are in fact unreferenced in the article itself. I propose deleting them forthwith. We could copy them over here, to the talk page, if people wanted some kind of record. And it's true that some of these references should be used--most obviously, in my view, the Paco Ignacio Taibo II biography. --
jbmurray (
talk|
contribs)
05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, on a somewhat different point: Why on earth does the list of Guevara's own writings consist only in translations? This is very misleading. It would make more sense to have a list of this own publications, with dates (and in chronological order), in Spanish, with information on translations as and where available. --
jbmurray (
talk|
contribs)
05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've spent some time with this article now, and made a bunch of edits, with further comments in the edit summaries. I should say that as far as I can see, POV is really the least of its concerns. (Which is not to say there are no POV problems, just that they are overshadowed by other issues.) This may well be a credit to the editors who have recently worked on it. But now there is still much to do in terms of producing a coherent and well-referenced article. At present it is mostly just badly written and insufficiently referenced. I probably do not have much time, but am willing to lend a hand from time to time. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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 outstanding contributions.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding these edits. I would argue that they are un-necessary. They provide a lot of detail regarding what Redthoreau rightly calls CG's "adolescent intellectual pursuits." I'd suggest that we don't need such detail: it's enough to know he was a voracious reader as a youth, across a wide literary and philosophical range. NB I was on the verge earlier also of deleting the fact that he played chess. In the article's current, reduced, size, do we need to know that?
I say this especially given that the article at present has very little (practically nothing) about his mature political and philosophical beliefs. If anything needs expansion, it's here.
But rather than reverting the above edits, I thought I'd raise the issue here first. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
![]() | April 2 - May 23, 2008 |
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)
Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested: In this edit, a "clarifyme" tag is removed from the sentence "Guevara remains a controversial and significant historical figure.". -- Coppertwig ( talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Re BuddingJournalist's comments at the FAR. Note that, as Redthoreau pointed out, many of these comments may be based on an older version of the article that was temporarily reverted to; e.g. perhaps the state of the article at 17:21 28 March 2008 (UTC). Here I'm condensing/paraphrasing/commenting on some of BuddingJournalist's comments. If/when you believe an item on this list has been corrected, I encourage you to mark it in this list as done. When I sign a "done" it may mean I did it myself or that I've verified that it's been done.
Extended content
|
---|
in the older version of the article it said: Current version:
I suggest something between these two versions: Guevara decided to settle down in Guatemala so as to "perfect [him]self and accomplish whatever may be necessary in order to become a true revolutionary".<ref>Guevara Lynch, Ernesto. Aquí va un soldado de América. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés Editores, S.A., 2000, p. 26. "En Guatemala me perfeccionaré y lograré lo que me falta para ser un revolucionario auténtico."</ref>
|
End of list of BuddingJournalists' comments as condensed/paraphrased and commented on by me. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BuddingJournalist seems insistent that the Cuba section should use this book as a reference: Piero Gleijeses' Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976. Does anyone have it? If not, I might order it through a second-hand bookstore. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
i searched for it in india its not available-- UD ( talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a list of Ling.Nut's comments, condensed, paraphrased and commented on by me. The original comments by Ling.Nut are at 14:44, 24 February 2008 plus many comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara between 13:28 29 March 2008 (UTC) and 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC). I encourage people to mark things in this list as done if/when they are. When I sign things as done, I may have either done them myself or verified that they've been done.
End of list of Ling.Nut's comments from FAR as condensed/paraphrased/commented on by me. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the reformatting of references I'm planning to do. Let me know if there are any objections.
Currently we have "Content notes", "Source notes" and "References" sections. This plan involves the second two of these.
Plan: Make the "Source notes" section into a list of short references (just author, year and page number, unless more info is needed to distinguish two similar sources), and list complete bibliographic information in the "References" section. Remove the tag at the top of the "Source notes" section which asks for ISBN numbers; perhaps move it to the "References" section or just delete it. Make links from the notes in the Source notes to the items in References as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references.
Therefore, within the text of the article, material within <ref></ref> tags will be just author, year, and page number (unlsss...), along with a code for linking it. People adding new references should then follow this format (making sure the full info on the reference is in the References section.)
I believe this plan is consistent with SandyGeorgia's message of Feb. 27, and with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 15#Cite.php. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
e.g. "Miller 2005, p.23." (From Shortened notes link.) -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
For convenience, when the author's name is spelled with accents, I spell the cite id without accents, e.g. "<cite id=refPena2004>Peña, Emilio Herasme ..." -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
About there being two types of footnotes: There were also two types of footnotes when the article was originally approved as a featured article. I would be open to discussing changing the footnote style, but I would like to point out that there are advantages to having two types of footnotes. I've seen at least one book with more than one type of superscript-indicated note used for different purposes.
With the use of cref and shortened ref notes, the wikitext remains uncluttered. The ref notes have the advantages that the superscript is small and unobtrusive and that there is a wikilink not only down into the footnote but also back up into the text, which can be useful for various purposes: one might start from the footnote and try to find where in the text it's used. Having two different types of footnotes serves the reader by letting the reader know what type of information is to be obtained. If the reader wants to know the reference for verification, the reader can click on the numbered footnotes, and if the reader wants additional information, the reader can click on the named footnotes. It saves the reader time and frustration to know before clicking which type of information will be seen.
SandyGeorgia, in reply to your edit summary "one of the messiest articles I've seen on Wiki, don't small the refs twice, they become illegible, something should be done about these notes": Note that I'm in the process of reformatting the references as described in this section. I haven't gotten very far yet -- I only started approximately a day ago. I'm open to specific suggestions about how to do it. I'd appreciate it if you would specify what you mean by "messy" in your edit summary so that we can do something to address the problem. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that citations be formatted as follows. It's similar to the way most are already formatted, but requires moving the year to immediately after the author's name, where I think it's easier to find, and also changing the use of italics (and bold for the volume number, and possibly other details) in the case of articles. Currently, the year is usually given near the end, just before the ISBN number. Also, adding a period after the ISBN number. These examples are from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style; the first is for a book, the second for a journal article (or chapter of a book etc. would be similar).
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that when references are given within the content notes, that they be formatted like this: ([[#refGuevaraLynch2000|Guevara Lynch 2000]], p. 26.) (For an example, see the source note I just created called "perfeccionaré".) This is so that the reference will jump immediately down into the References section. If <ref> tags are used, then once the wikilinks into References are added, the reader would have to make 3 jumps, through all 3 footnote sections, to find out what the source is; I think that's too much.
I furthermore propose that the Content Notes be put into alphabetical order. Currently they seem to be approximately in the order they appear in the text. I think it would be much easier to maintain them in a correct order if they were alphabetical. It may also (arguably) be easier for the reader to find a given note in the list if they're alphabetical.
I would appreciate comments on the above proposals. In particular, if anyone objects to any of the format changes I suggest above, please say so. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(speaking of the time when he met Hilda and was introduced to a number of people including a number of Cubans) "Au Mexique, on fait précéder le nom des Argentins de Che. Ernesto n'a pas failli à la règle : il est devenu el Che Guevara. Quand Nico López, les Roa et les autres Cubains commencèrent à le fréquenter, il répondait déjà à ce sobriquet. Pour simplifier, il devint Che. Cette syllabe ... commence ou ponctue les phrases. De fait, Ernesto se démarquait de ses amis latino-américains en servant du che à tout bout de phrase." (ellipsis mine. Translation: In Mexico, they put "Che" in front of the names of Argentineans. Ernesto was no exception to this rule: he became el Che Guevara. When Nico López, the Roas and the other Cubans began associating with him, he already answered to the nickname. For simplicity, he became Che. This syllable ... begins or punctuates sentences. In fact, Ernesto distinguished himself from his Latin-American friends by using che at the end of every sentence.) |
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Continuation of discussion from Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 16#Analysis of wikilinks.
I went through the multiple links listed at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox7 (2nd section) and reduced the number of links of those I thought needed to be reduced. Mostly I didn't reduce them as far as the numbers I'd originally suggested; seeing their context in the article I decided to leave many in. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Done/Moved: Everything in this section is either done or listed in the Talk:Che Guevara#Consolidated to-do list. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What are other editor’s opinions on the inclusion of the Timeline picture? I remember User:Polaris999 had told me that he created it for the article in hopes it would improve its FA status, but I have yet to see Timelines in very many articles of featured historical figures. I believe that the amount of space it takes up, might not equate to it's informational value, but would be hesitant to remove it without consulting other editors, and because of the fact that User:Polaris999 (an editor I have great respect for) included it. Redthoreau ( talk TR 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I'm removing this broken link from the Moynihan reference. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my contention, that the article is coming out very nicely, and becoming vastly improved from even a shirt time ago, mostly thanks to the organizational skill and direction from Coppertwig. Let's keep it up. Redthoreau ( talk TR 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
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 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
I removed the following reference(s) from the article:
The following references don't seem to appear in the current version of the article, though they were there earlier:
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Text "location" ignored (
help)</ref>☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The following reference was added April 1. The same publication is already listed in the References section, with no web link. I see no reason to think the website is not violating copyright, in which case we should not link to it.
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just taken this one out for similar reasons, Online at Sozialistische Klassiker (was given as link for English translation of Guevara's Algiers speech); possibly copyvio, plus the link goes to some sort of home page and it's not immediately obvious to me how to find the desired text. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This link has been deleted from Wikisource as a copyvio, so I'm removing the link here: English translation of complete text: Che Guevara's Farewell Letter at Wikisource. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether this link is a copyvio, so I'm removing the link. (Diario del Che en Bolivia.) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just to explain why I removed the Cuban flag from the infobox, while Che was a dual-citizen he had no other direct relation to Cuba, that being linked by birth or ethnicity, the tendency troughout Wikipedia has been completely removing flags from the infobox, but for now I am following the one we had prior to that with dual-citizens wich was to only use the one from the nation of birth or in some cases the ethinicity when the person was born in a country by a matter of chance. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7
As I think it should be: Alarcón Ramírez, Dariel dit "Benigno". Le Che en Bolivie. Éditions du Rocher, 1997. ISBN 2-268-02437-7
However, SandyGeorgia has stated that the latter is "too small" to read. I have looked for information on official wikipedia font sizing ... but have been unsuccessful. Can anyone provide me with that? Or do other editors have an opinion on the reference font size? To me the smaller is preferable and still legible, but I am willing to be swayed / and willing to relent to concensus. Redthoreau ( talk TR 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Changes already in progress, based on consensus:
Further proposed changes; comments welcome:
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Redthoreau had already indicated acceptance of the above suggestions. Further suggestion:
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a replacement for List of to-do lists. This is for collecting the few items not done out of some other to-do lists, so that the original to-do lists can be archived.
-- Coppertwig ( talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Che Guevara#Wanna help?. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You are going to need to address the forced image sizes in this article. They are generally frowned upon, according to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Skomorokh 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The objections listed in the open FAR have not been addressed. They are not crossed off as done. This article is still in Featured Article Review and the main overwhelming complaint was POV issues. I do not see that they have been taken care of. No one is paying attention in FAR as the impression is that others are not allowed to edit this article. – Mattisse ( Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is taken almost word-for-word from the source and, if kept, needs to be rewritten or presented as a quote: " He called for the diversification of the Cuban economy, and for the elimination of material incentives. He believed that volunteer work and dedication of workers would drive economic growth and that all that was needed was will. To display this, Guevara led by example, working endlessly at his ministry job, in construction, and even cutting sugar cane, as did Castro." Source given is [2]; see the part of that source under the section heading "Popular but ineffective". --☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Today I took care of the 4 remaining citation needed tags. None of them remain at this time.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
These ones were commented out in the wikitext. I'm removing them. (About.com and geocities: not reliable sources.)
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the correct spelling of the author's name here: it was given in this article as "Aleksandr Alexeiev in Cuba después del triunfo de la revolución ("Cuba after the triumph of the revolution")". I did some Google searches and found another publication referencing it, spelling the name as "Alekseev". I've changed it to the latter spelling. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"Heikal's account of Guevara's conversations with Nasser in February and March of 1965 lends further credence to this interpretation. See Heikal, Mohamed Hassanein. The Cairo Documents, pp 347-357." was added by Polaris999 on 17:58, 3 October 2006. So it seems to still be in correct context: it appears to be referring to Che believing that Africa was imperialism's weak link. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says, "After Hilda Gadea was arrested, Guevara sought protection inside the Argentine consulate, where he remained until he received a safe-conduct pass some weeks later and made his way to Mexico." Maybe I'm confusing events of different places and time periods, but I think Cormier says that Che was in prison during this time period. On p. 110, it recounts 30 men including Che being taken prisoner. Fidel was there and called to the men to surrender peacefully: "C'est à Cuba que nous nous battrons, pas ici." ("It's in Cuba that we will fight with each other, not here.") Che was then interrogated, with an anglophone in the background whom Che supposed was an agent of the FBI or CIA.
In an earlier version of this article, it said that Che turned down a free plane ticket to Argentina, and someone complained that the article should explain why Che did that. I think I found the reason. I think (but am not completely sure) that this refers to the same event. Cormier p. 111: they're talking about how to get Che out of prison, and Fidel argues that Che as an Argentine is not really involved, but Che is quoted as saying "Je suis lié au destin des Cubains, je reste avec eux." ("I'm bound to the fate of the Cubans; I stay with them.")
Some other bits of information that there might not necessarily be room for in this article: The Granma was only designed to hold about 25 people, and they were 82, so they had to leave behind a lot of supplies. (Cormier, p. 121.) On board the Granma, Che suddenly clapped his hands to his forehead; he had forgotten his asthma medicine: it was on the quay with the supplies which had been deemed inessential. (p. 122.) On Dec. 5, 1956, when they were attacked, Che's firearm was not one of the best. He had felt himself physically diminished by an asthma attack on the voyage, and had thought that the best firearms should go to the men who were fit. (p. 126.) Nico López had been the first member of the group to call Che "Che" (p. 128). ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wikilinking some author names in the references list that have Wikipedia pages. For these ones, I've wikilinked but I'm not sure whether I have the right person: Ariel Dorfman, Edmundo Murray. For these ones, I haven't wikilinked because I don't think it's the right person: Ahmed Ben Bella, Edward George, Will Grant, Joseph Hart(wrong century), Michael Moynihan (journalist)(see others by that name at Michael Moynihan) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Has really been on the rise the last few days. I wanted to add semi-protection (as it was before) but am unable to and thus can't stop the tide of IP accounts. It's a shame that someone can besmirch an encyclopedia with vulgar sexual language ... but the idiocy on the "internets" never ceases to amaze. However I have a question for other editors ??? How do you report a repeat vandal or have them blocked ? (There should be a "Report" button or something). Thanks and remember to help out by placing the page on your watch list and if free ... check it a once a day for the vandals.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear colegues: My name is Roblespepe, and I am the main editor of the Che Guevara article in the w:es. I want to tell you that the name writen in this article ("Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch") is wrong:
You can verify what I'm saying in the official born document of Che Guevara (legal name is written in the left margin). Kind regards, w:es:Usuario:Roblespepe.17-04-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblespepe ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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
13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ling Nut, since you added the Dubious tag on the statement ... can you please provide your rationale, so we can address and alleviate it if possible? Thanks.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
05:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
undent) What I want, of course, is for someone to read the book by Prado for significant variations from the article's current version, and incorporate them, citing as necessary. the source is given above (Ryan 1998, p. 134). Quote follows:
Varying accounts of Guevara's execution reflect various personal interests. Rodriguez, extrovert, soldier of fortune, and above all Cuban exile and bay of pigs veteran, gives a highly dramatic account of his own involvement with Guevara on October 9...[ellide]...Rodriguez even affirms that he was considered to be in command of the Bolivian contingent when Guevara was executed; no one else has substantiated this claim... prado will have none of it. he states that although he himself had returned to the ravine, Zenteno as at La Higuera and in command atthe time of the execution. Rodriguez, prado says, identified Guevara, took pictures of him, and photographed his diary, nothing more, just as the CIA had little to do with the campaign in general. he says Rodriguez returned to vallegrande after a few hours, which if true would mean that he could not have been involved in the execution the way he says he was...This is more than a historical quibble. In Prado's view, R. is grandstanding, claiming undue credit not only for himself but also by extension for the CIA and the United States...
Here we see the roles of Rodriguez and the CIA explicitly minimized by a firsthand accound; in the article, the lead sentence explicitly states Rodriguez led the capture, and could easily be read to imply that the CIA in fact led the entire operation. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Listed in references section, but not used in inline citations. Should we remove these? Do we have any idea which, if any, of the ideas in the text are supported by these?
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the words "fomenting" and "inciting" as in "fomenting revolution" are POV and need to be replaced with neutral words.
foment: "to encourage or instigate (trouble, discord, etc.), stir up." (The Collins English Dictionary. 1979, 1986, 1988. ISBN 0 00 433134-6. William Collins & Co. Ltd. Great Britain.)
Here are some possible alternative words (with the help of a thesaurus and a family member). I've classified them into positive, negative and neutral. Some are borderline or arguable. A good test: Can you imagine Che Guevara saying with a straight face, "I think I'll go and start fomenting revolution now"? Can you imagine Che's detractors saying, "I don't like the man -- all he does is give birth to revolution"? A neutral term should be able to fit naturallly into both these sentences.
I particularly like "initiate", "stimulate" and "promote", but many of the others in the neutral list are OK too. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
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
22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As per Sandy's FAR comments, can we standardize the nonstandard citation style in this article? I've disliked it since the first second I laid eyes on it, and that would be true regardless of the article's topic... but I have been operating under the assumption that it reflected some sort of special consensus arrived at earlier... Is that the case..? Ling.Nut ( talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Very many of the works listed under "References" are in fact unreferenced in the article itself. I propose deleting them forthwith. We could copy them over here, to the talk page, if people wanted some kind of record. And it's true that some of these references should be used--most obviously, in my view, the Paco Ignacio Taibo II biography. --
jbmurray (
talk|
contribs)
05:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, on a somewhat different point: Why on earth does the list of Guevara's own writings consist only in translations? This is very misleading. It would make more sense to have a list of this own publications, with dates (and in chronological order), in Spanish, with information on translations as and where available. --
jbmurray (
talk|
contribs)
05:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've spent some time with this article now, and made a bunch of edits, with further comments in the edit summaries. I should say that as far as I can see, POV is really the least of its concerns. (Which is not to say there are no POV problems, just that they are overshadowed by other issues.) This may well be a credit to the editors who have recently worked on it. But now there is still much to do in terms of producing a coherent and well-referenced article. At present it is mostly just badly written and insufficiently referenced. I probably do not have much time, but am willing to lend a hand from time to time. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 10:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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 outstanding contributions.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding these edits. I would argue that they are un-necessary. They provide a lot of detail regarding what Redthoreau rightly calls CG's "adolescent intellectual pursuits." I'd suggest that we don't need such detail: it's enough to know he was a voracious reader as a youth, across a wide literary and philosophical range. NB I was on the verge earlier also of deleting the fact that he played chess. In the article's current, reduced, size, do we need to know that?
I say this especially given that the article at present has very little (practically nothing) about his mature political and philosophical beliefs. If anything needs expansion, it's here.
But rather than reverting the above edits, I thought I'd raise the issue here first. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |