![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | This is Archive 5 covering approximately 19 April 2006 - 30 May 2006 |
On 19 April 2006, User 68.9.241.233 pointed out via a note inserted into the text of the third paragraph of the "Congo" section of the Che article that the person referred to as directing a US Green Beret A-Team supposedly operating against Che in the Congo is actually a fictional character who appears in the series The Brotherhood of War written by author W.E.B. Griffin. I was interested to determine who had inserted the sentences referring to this character as if he were a real person and traced back through the HISTORY page until I found the point when the modification was made, and I will attach that information below:
Revision as of 13:05, 16 March 2006
South African mercenaries including
Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the
Congolese army to thwart Guevara. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[1]
[2] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of
guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.
[3] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of
guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.
[4] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.
Revision as of 13:25, 16 March 2006
TDC (Talk | contribs)
(→Congo)
Newer edit
A six man
US Green Beret A-Team led by Lt Colonel Craig Lowell along with South African mercenaries including
Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the
Congolese army to thwart Guevara.
Lt Colonel Lowell convinced the Congolese that it would be better to not kill Guevara and turn him into a martyr, but to grind his forces down and humiliate the Cubans. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.
[5]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of
guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.
[6] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.
Additional information about the novel in question, i.e. The Brotherhood of War: Special Ops, Part 2, can be found at Audio-to-go.
Polaris999 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Every time I stop by this article every few months, I see that the iconic image up as the portrait photo. We are supposed to be writing a biography about the real Guevara, not confusing him with the cult figure. I will get around to inserting a neutral photo, such as the ones appearing in these links [1] [2] 172 | Talk 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's crazy to not show the photo that people widely associate with Che Guevera. Surely the photo is there to aid in reader identification of the individual? Showing the Korda potrait photo does not cause people to confuse the individual with a cult figure, if anything it does the exact opposite.
Also, the Korda photo is the only real portrait photo (i.e. the usual head-on-sholders framing) held on Wiki. Whether it was "staged" or not is completly irrelevant, most the biographies on Wikipedia display a potrait from a professionally co-ordinated photoshoot. At least the Korda photo shows him involved in politics (what he is primarily famous for after all) rather than simply standing in a room. Canderra 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
At 03:20 on 05 April 2006, User:67.171.226.128 added Category: Atheists to the Che article. At 03:34 on 5 April 2006, User:DakotaKahn removed it with the comment, "rv-please resource before adding Category:Atheists no source was given". Although it is widely known that Che was an atheist, I have waited to restore User:67.171.226.128's edit until I was able to locate a printed source for it; I have now done so – in a passage on page 25 of Che: Sierra adentro (Che: Deep in the Sierra) by Froilán Escobar and Félix Guerra (Havana: Editora Política, 1988), wherein Oniria Gutiérrez, a combatant in Che's column, describes her first meeting with him, as follows:
"I cannot forget the first night he talked with me … He spoke of my religious ideas and that made me ask him if he was religious. No, he answered, I cannot be religious because I am a Communist."
Polaris999 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is an additional source, very much to the point, also from Che: Sierra adentro. In this section, Evelio Laferté, another combatant in Che's column, reminisces:
"As part of organizing the school, Fidel wanted us to come up with certain kinds of oaths for the recruits. The kind of oath we were familiar with was the classic one that existed in the army, which involved God, the word of God, "I swear before God and Country, the Flag" - that sort of thing. We sent two drafts, one of which, by accident, included the word God; accidentally, because we had not intentionally put it there. I recall that this one had to go through Che to get to Fidel.
"Che replied to us in a letter that he had not sent the oath on because, in his view, it was not correct to make someone swear to something in which he did not believe. That he, for example, did not believe in God, and that no one was capable of making him believe in God. That was his reply to us. At the time, it seemed to me that the reply was not very good politics, because the concept I had of politics was to make concessions. But for Che, when it came to questions of fundamental principles, no concessions were possible; it was wrong to try to enlist men through deceit." [3]
(bolding is mine) Polaris999 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this section not make sense? On one hand detractors say he was ineffective, but on the other hand detractors say he was responsible for the deaths of scores. Obviously both aren't right. Does anyone know of a source that addresses this contradiction, and perhaps even reconciles it? Yankoz
I performed a revert on a change by User:Mcmachete of the translation of the term "Che" from "pal" or "mate" or "dude" to "hey". My understanding of the term Che is that "pal" or "mate" or "dude" are much better translations than "hey" (although I agree "hey" is a possible additional translation). But "hey" is , is what you just described it as. It is the attention getting word before an endearing term. That endearing term can also be an insult, as friends often dish out insults as a way of demonstrating closeness. i.e. "Larry, you old buzzard, get in here and blow out these candles."
A common Argentine greeting among close friends is "Che, flaco! que hacés?" Of course there would be upside down punctuation to frame the front of the phrases with ! and ?.
It definitely is not used to get the attention of someone you don't know. Think like when you hear "ehye, buddy" rather than "HEY! Come back with my car!" 68.55.206.184 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you wrote up here, but I just want to say that here in Argentina (and usually in Uruguay too) the word 'che' is used to get the attention of other person, whether you know his/her name or not. I use it every day and I know that it doesn't mean "dude" or "mate": it can be traduced as "hey", but 'che' can be used to introduce a phrase and not to call a person. -- 201.235.44.133 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
How come wearing t-shirts with Che is legal? It is illegal to wear a t-shirt with image of Hitler or any other top Nazis, yet is is legal to wear one with image of Che. He was a communist and they were worse than the Nazis. This should be disallowed. Communists were cold blooded murders as well. Che was not a hero.
Another communist hater? So what you are saying is that a communist is a coldblooded murder only because you say so, am i right? this reminds me of the debate about Lars Ohly calling himself a communist in Sweden. Che is not a murderer because he is a communist, as a matter of fact he said;
"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.
It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality".
Che killed people, yes, But for me it would be the same thing as forbidding the use of George Bush on t-shirts because he invaded Iraq and therefore is guilty of thousands of deaths. Of course, i am probably biased since i am a communist myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.136.18 ( talk • contribs)
This guy was a terrorist, plain and simple. There is nothing to be proud of by declaring yourself a communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.205.201 ( talk • contribs)
It isn't illegal to wear shirts depicting Hitler. Welcome to America.
So you call me a communist hater...well, unlike you, I grew up in a communist country so I happen to know what they are capable of. For example, in 1940 communists killed 25,000 polish officers, aristocracy, priests etc within 2 weeks. Now that's a very good reason to hate them.
So it's not illegal in America to wear tshirts with Hitler. Try wearing one of these in Germany and you'll get arrested. Maybe it's legal in America, but try to wear it publically and someone will lynch you. Norum
No, I was referring to the Katyn massacre in 1940. Many people have hard times believing that communists were worse than Nazis. See, communists did what they did long after the war. Do you know what they did with with the free Polish government right after the war? They arrested them right after the war, tried them with false accusations and executed. How can you claim we were not invaded by the communists, but by the Soviets? SU was a communist country therefore Poland was invided by the communist. Don't forget they formed communist goverment in Poland that lasted for 45 years (well, the system, not the gov). What the communists did was not only during the years of the war, it was long into the time of "peace".
This seems rather POV. Isn't the point of the discussion page more to debate the facts regarding Guevara than engage in these kind of hypotheticals about what should and shouldn't be legal? Maybe this sort of thing would be better served on a political webpage or discussion room. Canderra has a point. Wyldkat
Indeed, besides the silliness of this discussion being here... Che wasn't a communist... if anything he was a maoist... not that you should start argueing about mao here... Misterniceguy7 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Besides, those shirts are so pimpin'! Man! lol,-- DoomsElf 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What the Soviet Union did to their own people and others was "in the name of" communism and an interpretation of Marx-Lenin, rather than being true to wider socialist philosophy. Don't confuse those who use a doctrine for their own power with those who use it for the freedoms and rights of others. George Bush "says" he is a Christian - would you say everybody that was a Christian behaved or thought like him? There is nothing wrong with being a socialist or communist, like there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. There is something very wrong with abusing people for your own ends as the Soviet Union did and still does.
In America it is seen as very wrong to be "socialist"; in Europe it is often an ideal and a sign of care for the disadvantaged. Events like Katrina last year showed that the US is far from any notion of social care and fair distribution of means. 62.3.70.68 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Moonwalkerwiz 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) These talks bore me. Each side has enough reason to justify their position. The reason why the Communism vs Capitalism debate never ends is that its very purpose is to prolong the talks and never get to doing something concrete. The Utopia of Communism can never be achieved by such stupid argumentation, it's merely pre-empting it (like the US and Soviet War is pre-empted by videogames and Hollywood movies). People who debate about these things would like to think they're actually getting nearer the reality of whatever they say, but this is merely simulation, empty gratification of dry desires. We don't have wars anymore, because we have people like you talking. And whatever wars we have, it's as real to us as a Looney Toons cartoon.
... And this is the point when you open up a private chatroom and continue the conversation outside Wikipedia talk space. Really. Please. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit-conflicted agreement: this is enough argumentum ad hominem, please. It is quite possible to have a disagreement with someone without wishing them ill, calling them immature or questioning their upbringing. Thanks. RadioKirk ( u| t| c) 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know you can get Che tea towels? Sadena 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Communist=Evil? Answer: No. He may have killed people, but all revolutionaries (well most) have to kill people. "Communists were worse then the Nazis". Wrong again. Nazis murdered people who were differant. Communists dont run on rascism. Communism isn't bad, in fact what people consider communism isn't even really. A communist dictatorship is actually an oxy-moron. Complete opposites. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. He may be a terrorist to you, but the fact is, some consider him a hero. You think the patriots in the american revolution never killed anyone out of cold blood? Doubt it, im sure they killed people in cold blood, but we think of them as heroes. Good and Bad is a mteer of point of view.
NB: Because confusion has once again arisen about whether or not there should be an accent on the "e" of Che, I am reprising this section where the matter was thoroughly discussed. [Original text can be seen in Archive 2.] Polaris999 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed to find not one word about whether the spelling is "Che" or "Ché". I've seen the latter in a number of publications, most recently in Famous Last Words (C. B. Ruffin). Yet there is no clarification which it truly is, nor is was there even a redirect from
Ché Guevara for those who might think to spell it this way. In my own ignorance, I can't tell if this is a case of English authors ignoring inconvenient accents or the equally peculiar habit of adding accents where they may not be needed. Can someone authoritatively state (preferably with cited references) which is correct? Not only is it a question of how to spell the appropriate Spanish (or Argentinian slang) for "buddy", but it's perhaps more important how Guevara himself (or his buddies) spelled it, as people's names don't necessarily follow their origins. —
Jeff Q
(talk)
14:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of external links. Did not see any discussion recently on this page concerning removal of links so did the revert. Such changes such be discussed first.-- Dakota ~ 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I re-reverted your revert but only saw afterwards your explanation here after I have done so. Sorry!
Please look at the history of the guy who originally added his link ( 200.55.155.193) is constantly link spamming wikipedia with links to his website (nothing else in contribution, just adds his link). I followed him here from another page he keeps adding his links to. Cabanos 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
According to Che's mother, he was actually born on May 14th. She was three months pregnant when she married Che's father, so they pushed his date of birth a month ahead. - Che, Jon Lee Anderson, Chapter 1.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.169.68 ( talk • contribs)
Birthdate: While 14 June 1928 is Guevara's official date of birth, it may not be the actual date of birth. The official story is that he was born eight months after his parents married; several sources suggest that he was born earlier (the date 14 May is the most prevalent), and that his mother was already pregnant at the time of her marriage.
I readded some of the links from the Cuban Ministry of Culture website containing historic videos and images of Che Guevara. They are not spam links and are easily navigated. Please discuss any changes before removal of material. -- Dakota ~ 20:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/
Just wanted to make sure that people know about templates like {{ en icon}}, {{ es icon}}, etc., which show up as (in English), (in Spanish), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have many Cuban friends ....many with families that were either tortured or killed my this thug. I refer you to an article in National Review on December 31, 2004 pp 28-30 "Che Chic" by Jay Nordlinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.57.233 ( talk • contribs) User talk:24.115.57.233
Whether he murdered or not, to call him a thug is insulting. He is a revolutionary. How does does a revolutionary take and consilidate power? Violence. He is far from a murderous thug.
Okay, then I say Ronald Regan was a genocidal murderer. They both killed people didn't they? The difference is Ronald Reagan got people to do it for him while Che did it himself. While were at it, lets round up all the revolutionary war heroes who killed and call them murderous thugs cause it doesn't suit your idealogy.- 69.123.9.255 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
![]() | This is Archive 5 covering approximately 19 April 2006 - 30 May 2006 |
On 19 April 2006, User 68.9.241.233 pointed out via a note inserted into the text of the third paragraph of the "Congo" section of the Che article that the person referred to as directing a US Green Beret A-Team supposedly operating against Che in the Congo is actually a fictional character who appears in the series The Brotherhood of War written by author W.E.B. Griffin. I was interested to determine who had inserted the sentences referring to this character as if he were a real person and traced back through the HISTORY page until I found the point when the modification was made, and I will attach that information below:
Revision as of 13:05, 16 March 2006
South African mercenaries including
Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the
Congolese army to thwart Guevara. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[1]
[2] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of
guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.
[3] Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of
guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.
[4] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.
Revision as of 13:25, 16 March 2006
TDC (Talk | contribs)
(→Congo)
Newer edit
A six man
US Green Beret A-Team led by Lt Colonel Craig Lowell along with South African mercenaries including
Mike Hoare and Cuban exiles worked with the
Congolese army to thwart Guevara.
Lt Colonel Lowell convinced the Congolese that it would be better to not kill Guevara and turn him into a martyr, but to grind his forces down and humiliate the Cubans. They were able to monitor Guevara's communications, arrange to ambush the rebels and the Cubans whenever they attempted to attack, and interdict Guevara's supply lines.
[5]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). Guevara's aim was to export the Cuban Revolution by instructing local Simba fighters in communist ideology and strategies of
guerrilla warfare. The incompetence, intransigence, and infighting of the local Congolese forces are cited by Guevara in his Congo Diaries as the key reasons for the revolt's failure.
[6] Later that same year, ill, suffering from his asthma and frustrated after seven months of hardship, Guevara left the Congo with the Cuban survivors (six of Guevara's column had died). At one point Guevara considered sending the wounded back to Cuba, then standing alone and fighting until the end in Congo as a revolutionary example; but after being persuaded by his comrades in arms and two emissaries sent by Fidel Castro, he left the Congo.
Additional information about the novel in question, i.e. The Brotherhood of War: Special Ops, Part 2, can be found at Audio-to-go.
Polaris999 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Every time I stop by this article every few months, I see that the iconic image up as the portrait photo. We are supposed to be writing a biography about the real Guevara, not confusing him with the cult figure. I will get around to inserting a neutral photo, such as the ones appearing in these links [1] [2] 172 | Talk 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's crazy to not show the photo that people widely associate with Che Guevera. Surely the photo is there to aid in reader identification of the individual? Showing the Korda potrait photo does not cause people to confuse the individual with a cult figure, if anything it does the exact opposite.
Also, the Korda photo is the only real portrait photo (i.e. the usual head-on-sholders framing) held on Wiki. Whether it was "staged" or not is completly irrelevant, most the biographies on Wikipedia display a potrait from a professionally co-ordinated photoshoot. At least the Korda photo shows him involved in politics (what he is primarily famous for after all) rather than simply standing in a room. Canderra 21:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
At 03:20 on 05 April 2006, User:67.171.226.128 added Category: Atheists to the Che article. At 03:34 on 5 April 2006, User:DakotaKahn removed it with the comment, "rv-please resource before adding Category:Atheists no source was given". Although it is widely known that Che was an atheist, I have waited to restore User:67.171.226.128's edit until I was able to locate a printed source for it; I have now done so – in a passage on page 25 of Che: Sierra adentro (Che: Deep in the Sierra) by Froilán Escobar and Félix Guerra (Havana: Editora Política, 1988), wherein Oniria Gutiérrez, a combatant in Che's column, describes her first meeting with him, as follows:
"I cannot forget the first night he talked with me … He spoke of my religious ideas and that made me ask him if he was religious. No, he answered, I cannot be religious because I am a Communist."
Polaris999 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is an additional source, very much to the point, also from Che: Sierra adentro. In this section, Evelio Laferté, another combatant in Che's column, reminisces:
"As part of organizing the school, Fidel wanted us to come up with certain kinds of oaths for the recruits. The kind of oath we were familiar with was the classic one that existed in the army, which involved God, the word of God, "I swear before God and Country, the Flag" - that sort of thing. We sent two drafts, one of which, by accident, included the word God; accidentally, because we had not intentionally put it there. I recall that this one had to go through Che to get to Fidel.
"Che replied to us in a letter that he had not sent the oath on because, in his view, it was not correct to make someone swear to something in which he did not believe. That he, for example, did not believe in God, and that no one was capable of making him believe in God. That was his reply to us. At the time, it seemed to me that the reply was not very good politics, because the concept I had of politics was to make concessions. But for Che, when it came to questions of fundamental principles, no concessions were possible; it was wrong to try to enlist men through deceit." [3]
(bolding is mine) Polaris999 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this section not make sense? On one hand detractors say he was ineffective, but on the other hand detractors say he was responsible for the deaths of scores. Obviously both aren't right. Does anyone know of a source that addresses this contradiction, and perhaps even reconciles it? Yankoz
I performed a revert on a change by User:Mcmachete of the translation of the term "Che" from "pal" or "mate" or "dude" to "hey". My understanding of the term Che is that "pal" or "mate" or "dude" are much better translations than "hey" (although I agree "hey" is a possible additional translation). But "hey" is , is what you just described it as. It is the attention getting word before an endearing term. That endearing term can also be an insult, as friends often dish out insults as a way of demonstrating closeness. i.e. "Larry, you old buzzard, get in here and blow out these candles."
A common Argentine greeting among close friends is "Che, flaco! que hacés?" Of course there would be upside down punctuation to frame the front of the phrases with ! and ?.
It definitely is not used to get the attention of someone you don't know. Think like when you hear "ehye, buddy" rather than "HEY! Come back with my car!" 68.55.206.184 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you wrote up here, but I just want to say that here in Argentina (and usually in Uruguay too) the word 'che' is used to get the attention of other person, whether you know his/her name or not. I use it every day and I know that it doesn't mean "dude" or "mate": it can be traduced as "hey", but 'che' can be used to introduce a phrase and not to call a person. -- 201.235.44.133 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
How come wearing t-shirts with Che is legal? It is illegal to wear a t-shirt with image of Hitler or any other top Nazis, yet is is legal to wear one with image of Che. He was a communist and they were worse than the Nazis. This should be disallowed. Communists were cold blooded murders as well. Che was not a hero.
Another communist hater? So what you are saying is that a communist is a coldblooded murder only because you say so, am i right? this reminds me of the debate about Lars Ohly calling himself a communist in Sweden. Che is not a murderer because he is a communist, as a matter of fact he said;
"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.
It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality".
Che killed people, yes, But for me it would be the same thing as forbidding the use of George Bush on t-shirts because he invaded Iraq and therefore is guilty of thousands of deaths. Of course, i am probably biased since i am a communist myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.136.18 ( talk • contribs)
This guy was a terrorist, plain and simple. There is nothing to be proud of by declaring yourself a communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.205.201 ( talk • contribs)
It isn't illegal to wear shirts depicting Hitler. Welcome to America.
So you call me a communist hater...well, unlike you, I grew up in a communist country so I happen to know what they are capable of. For example, in 1940 communists killed 25,000 polish officers, aristocracy, priests etc within 2 weeks. Now that's a very good reason to hate them.
So it's not illegal in America to wear tshirts with Hitler. Try wearing one of these in Germany and you'll get arrested. Maybe it's legal in America, but try to wear it publically and someone will lynch you. Norum
No, I was referring to the Katyn massacre in 1940. Many people have hard times believing that communists were worse than Nazis. See, communists did what they did long after the war. Do you know what they did with with the free Polish government right after the war? They arrested them right after the war, tried them with false accusations and executed. How can you claim we were not invaded by the communists, but by the Soviets? SU was a communist country therefore Poland was invided by the communist. Don't forget they formed communist goverment in Poland that lasted for 45 years (well, the system, not the gov). What the communists did was not only during the years of the war, it was long into the time of "peace".
This seems rather POV. Isn't the point of the discussion page more to debate the facts regarding Guevara than engage in these kind of hypotheticals about what should and shouldn't be legal? Maybe this sort of thing would be better served on a political webpage or discussion room. Canderra has a point. Wyldkat
Indeed, besides the silliness of this discussion being here... Che wasn't a communist... if anything he was a maoist... not that you should start argueing about mao here... Misterniceguy7 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Besides, those shirts are so pimpin'! Man! lol,-- DoomsElf 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What the Soviet Union did to their own people and others was "in the name of" communism and an interpretation of Marx-Lenin, rather than being true to wider socialist philosophy. Don't confuse those who use a doctrine for their own power with those who use it for the freedoms and rights of others. George Bush "says" he is a Christian - would you say everybody that was a Christian behaved or thought like him? There is nothing wrong with being a socialist or communist, like there is nothing wrong with being a Christian. There is something very wrong with abusing people for your own ends as the Soviet Union did and still does.
In America it is seen as very wrong to be "socialist"; in Europe it is often an ideal and a sign of care for the disadvantaged. Events like Katrina last year showed that the US is far from any notion of social care and fair distribution of means. 62.3.70.68 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Moonwalkerwiz 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) These talks bore me. Each side has enough reason to justify their position. The reason why the Communism vs Capitalism debate never ends is that its very purpose is to prolong the talks and never get to doing something concrete. The Utopia of Communism can never be achieved by such stupid argumentation, it's merely pre-empting it (like the US and Soviet War is pre-empted by videogames and Hollywood movies). People who debate about these things would like to think they're actually getting nearer the reality of whatever they say, but this is merely simulation, empty gratification of dry desires. We don't have wars anymore, because we have people like you talking. And whatever wars we have, it's as real to us as a Looney Toons cartoon.
... And this is the point when you open up a private chatroom and continue the conversation outside Wikipedia talk space. Really. Please. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit-conflicted agreement: this is enough argumentum ad hominem, please. It is quite possible to have a disagreement with someone without wishing them ill, calling them immature or questioning their upbringing. Thanks. RadioKirk ( u| t| c) 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know you can get Che tea towels? Sadena 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Communist=Evil? Answer: No. He may have killed people, but all revolutionaries (well most) have to kill people. "Communists were worse then the Nazis". Wrong again. Nazis murdered people who were differant. Communists dont run on rascism. Communism isn't bad, in fact what people consider communism isn't even really. A communist dictatorship is actually an oxy-moron. Complete opposites. Also, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. He may be a terrorist to you, but the fact is, some consider him a hero. You think the patriots in the american revolution never killed anyone out of cold blood? Doubt it, im sure they killed people in cold blood, but we think of them as heroes. Good and Bad is a mteer of point of view.
NB: Because confusion has once again arisen about whether or not there should be an accent on the "e" of Che, I am reprising this section where the matter was thoroughly discussed. [Original text can be seen in Archive 2.] Polaris999 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed to find not one word about whether the spelling is "Che" or "Ché". I've seen the latter in a number of publications, most recently in Famous Last Words (C. B. Ruffin). Yet there is no clarification which it truly is, nor is was there even a redirect from
Ché Guevara for those who might think to spell it this way. In my own ignorance, I can't tell if this is a case of English authors ignoring inconvenient accents or the equally peculiar habit of adding accents where they may not be needed. Can someone authoritatively state (preferably with cited references) which is correct? Not only is it a question of how to spell the appropriate Spanish (or Argentinian slang) for "buddy", but it's perhaps more important how Guevara himself (or his buddies) spelled it, as people's names don't necessarily follow their origins. —
Jeff Q
(talk)
14:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of external links. Did not see any discussion recently on this page concerning removal of links so did the revert. Such changes such be discussed first.-- Dakota ~ 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I re-reverted your revert but only saw afterwards your explanation here after I have done so. Sorry!
Please look at the history of the guy who originally added his link ( 200.55.155.193) is constantly link spamming wikipedia with links to his website (nothing else in contribution, just adds his link). I followed him here from another page he keeps adding his links to. Cabanos 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
According to Che's mother, he was actually born on May 14th. She was three months pregnant when she married Che's father, so they pushed his date of birth a month ahead. - Che, Jon Lee Anderson, Chapter 1.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.169.68 ( talk • contribs)
Birthdate: While 14 June 1928 is Guevara's official date of birth, it may not be the actual date of birth. The official story is that he was born eight months after his parents married; several sources suggest that he was born earlier (the date 14 May is the most prevalent), and that his mother was already pregnant at the time of her marriage.
I readded some of the links from the Cuban Ministry of Culture website containing historic videos and images of Che Guevara. They are not spam links and are easily navigated. Please discuss any changes before removal of material. -- Dakota ~ 20:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
http://cheguevaralies.blogspot.com/
Just wanted to make sure that people know about templates like {{ en icon}}, {{ es icon}}, etc., which show up as (in English), (in Spanish), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have many Cuban friends ....many with families that were either tortured or killed my this thug. I refer you to an article in National Review on December 31, 2004 pp 28-30 "Che Chic" by Jay Nordlinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.57.233 ( talk • contribs) User talk:24.115.57.233
Whether he murdered or not, to call him a thug is insulting. He is a revolutionary. How does does a revolutionary take and consilidate power? Violence. He is far from a murderous thug.
Okay, then I say Ronald Regan was a genocidal murderer. They both killed people didn't they? The difference is Ronald Reagan got people to do it for him while Che did it himself. While were at it, lets round up all the revolutionary war heroes who killed and call them murderous thugs cause it doesn't suit your idealogy.- 69.123.9.255 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)