- 1 Cut from intro
- 2 Poster
- 3 Image
- 4 Living legends
- 5 Liberal Activist?
- 6 Pic is foolish
- 7 The guy actually wasn't that bad…
- 8 Final sentence
- 9 Terrorism
- 10 T-shirt image; categories
- 11 Request Edit
- 12 Image
- 13 "Rob"olution?
- 14 Medical Degree
- 15 Slight change to wording?
- 16 Guevara worship
- 17 Che image
Cut from intro
- There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.
What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?
This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --Ed Poor 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- He is also the voice of the conscience of Eva Peron in Andrew Lloyd Weber's Evita. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by Antonio Banderas, and Evita by Madonna.
Wikipedia's article also has problems. --Ed Poor 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-AmesG<suyo!</sub> 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Evita!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. RobS 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? MountainDew 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand why it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. RobS 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-AmesGyo! 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky ). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death in absentia by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. RobS 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-AmesGyo! 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. RobS 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Er, killing him in out in the jungle? Where, exactly, do you think he is? Pachuca 17:55, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Er- isn't this an article about Che? Should the only pictures present be ones of, oh, I don't know, CHE??!?!?--NTemple 00:09, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Maybe glasses would help? I see two pictures of Che. What do you see? --₮K/Administrator/Talk 00:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. MatteeNeutra 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
- RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers MatteeNeutra 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
- Why are you thinking this is encyclopedia?! --Aulis Eskola 07:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Are you honest to God saying that the US is deliberately leaving Osama alive so he doesn't become an martyr? That's rich. Pachuca 17:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Che was a militant communist, he was the farthest thing from liberal. How can he be in this category. --JeffreyJamesRideout 20:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Pic is foolish
I don't care if you hate the guy or not, that picture is immature and juvenile. --VincentValentine 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
I like it. DanH 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
But isn't this supposed to be a serious encyclopedia? The pic seems like a joke --VincentValentine 22:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- I think I'll get the t-shirt myself! Karajou 22:09, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
That's why they call us Conservapedia--we don't 'baah' with the herd. RobS
Mayhaps, but when people see this, they're going to think this site is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia wouldn't allow a childish image like that. Maestro 22:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- Childish? And how would characterize honoring a terrorist? On second thought, that should be rephrased--I wouldn't wish to insult children by equalting their behaviour to romanticized T-shirts of Che Guevara. RobS 22:54, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- Then how about an actual photograph? The article rips him apart, put the picture costs you credibility. Maestro 22:58, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- As you said, "Wikipedia wouldn't allow it," I couldn't think of a better argument to keep it than that. We just need to expand a bit about our misguided youth on campus, and the societal factors that lead them astray, to pay actual money for his T-shirts, and worse yet walk around as if they are "hip" or proud to wear such a thing. RobS 23:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- Then how about an actual photograph? The article rips him apart, put the picture costs you credibility. Maestro 22:58, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
So would you have a picture of Hitler with a caption that said 'I invaded Poland and all I got was this lousy T-shirt?' You're making light of a serious issue. Maestro 01:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, Che was a head of State? RobS 11:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
The guy actually wasn't that bad…
He was quite humane, gave Bolivian soldiers medical care, etc. Just because someone is a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're evil. --Che 23:09, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
- A humane terrorist. How poetic. RobS 11:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Ronald Reagan was a terrorist to? Remember Nicarauga, and helping Saddam --CheGuevara 19:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
That final sentence should go. "Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader." It basically says that the reason Osama hasn't been killed is to avoid making him a martyr, not because he can't be found. I really don't think that's true. And it's pretty debatable in Arafat's case as well. PortlyMort 14:18, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
It is unfortunate that the term terrorism is now used to refer to anyone out of favour with the United States, as if it were an ideology. Terrorists carry out unconventional attacks on civilians or occupying powers, which are designed to inspire fear and cause expense. Their reasoning is that the occupiers will find that the increased costs of security no longer justify their occupation, or that citizens of the occupying power will force their own government to withdraw. Some terrorists, especially crackpot groups in western countries, think that acts of terrorism will lead to armed insurrection and the overthrow of the government.
Terrorism should also be distinguished from committing atrocities, which are carried out by all military forces, even if not usually condoned.
Whatever their motives and their future actions, Castro and his followers were not terrorists, because they did not rely on terrorist tactics. They established a militia and took control of Cuba. However, if he begins to blow up government buildings, plant IEDs and wear a disguise in Cuba, then he would be a terrorist.
--The Four Deuces 20:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
- UNFORTUNATE? aww shucks...pity the poor terrorists....
- I block extremists who peddle nonsense and extreme views. RobS 21:26, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
T-shirt image; categories
Che Guevara was a Communist revolutionary. There is nothing 'liberal' about revolutionary Communism. The far left is no more 'liberal' than the far right.
Furthermore, it is not accurate to describe Che Guevara as a terrorist, any more than it would be accurate to describe those who overthrew British rule in America as 'terrorists'.
The T-shirt image shown here is highly misleading, as the caption states that t-shirts bearing Che's image are highly popular. Yes, they are, but not the t-shirt shown here. The vast majority of Che t-shirts are resolutely pro-Che, and the t-shirt you show here represents a minuscule minority of t-shirts sold and as such presents an exceptionally misleading impression which would never in a million years pass muster in a credible encyclopaedia.
I saw a video of Mr Scheftly talking about CP on The Hour and a kid was wearing one of these shirts...
This page needs an update, please unblock-- jp 23:23, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
You have no sense of humor HelpJazz. I wanted Che supporters to fume. What is sillier, the picture or believing Che is an idol?-- jp 15:05, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- I have a sense of humor, but this is an encyclopedia not open mike night. I was going to put it back in somewhere else, but there wasn't a "criticism" section, interestingly enough. Plus, the picture that is now in front is better; instead of a joke it shows what an evil person he was. I think that hits the point home even better. HelpJazz 15:06, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
This article says a lot more about the person who wrote it than Che Guevara
In the first paragraph the text says "Ernesto "Che" Guevara (b. June 14, 1928, died October 9th, 1967) was a sadistic Marxist guerrilla leader, with Fidel Castro, of the Cuban "Rob"olution and became a cultural icon for liberals, leftists, Communists, illegal aliens, and dumb white teenagers."
Cuban "Rob"olution should be changed to Cuban Revolution as that is the historical name for that period of Cuban history and "Rob"olution isn't encyclopedic or professional sounding and comes off as the author's personal view rather then a historical descriptive term. I can see such a term in an 'essay' piece but not as an encyclopedic article. -- BMcP 17:14, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- Unlike liberal encyclopedia's, BM, Conservapedia believes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is indeed a duck. The so-called Communist Revolution robbed the Cuban people, plain and simple. Anyone who does a few hours research knows that Guevara was a sadist, and indeed, finally a cowering coward. The man did nothing in his life to admire, so a person would have to be pretty stupid, as all of the classes identified in the article are, to admire such a fraud. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:24, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
- I am not asking for admiration of Che, nor am I commenting on what kind of person he was, or even how the author spoke of him, as that is an entirely different topic. I am just looking for historical accuracy for the name "Cuban Revolution". A communist revolution is still classified as a revolution no matter what we may think of those who instigated it or their governing philosophy, or what the results of that historical moment brought. If people want to think of it as robbery, that's fine, I just don't believe calling it Cuban "Rob"olution reflects the quality one would strive for in an opening paragraph of an encyclopedic article, it is not even a real word. -- BMcP 17:48, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
"He flunked out of medical school, never got his diploma, and still was chosen to be the medic for Fidel Castro's so called 'revolution'."
Is there a specific citation available for that statement? It is directly contradicted by Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, which states, "In June, Ernesto obtained a copy of his doctor’s degree, and a few days later he celebrated his twenty-fifth birthday. With his title in hand and duly legalized, he was now a bona fide doctor." While I do recall Fontova being critical of Anderson's work on the topic, is there a specific denial of this claim or a presentation of a contrary account in his own book? Agnapostate 07:47, 9 January 2010 (EST)
Slight change to wording?
In the section titled "Cuban Revolution," the entry reads "In 1955, a hobo living Guevara met Raul and Fidel Castro..." This wording doesn't sound correct to me. I don't know much about Guevara at any point in his life, but is this meant to imply that he was living as a hobo when he met the Castro brothers? If so, could it be changed to something like "In 1955, while living as a hobo, Guevara met Raul and Fidel Castro..." etc. I assume that this isn't vandalism, since the article is locked to prevent it, but as I said, I don't know nearly enough about Guevara to accurately say whether or not he was a hobo. In Christ, Tyler Zoran 21:45, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
- No problem. Good suggestion. Rob Smith 21:55, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
- Thanks; I changed the wording, so the article can probably be locked again (if necessary). Tyler Zoran 09:37, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
I think the article should not stop with Che Guevara's death - he became a communist deity after death, and there a huge cult over him. Sunda62 13:20, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
- Feel free to add that material under such a section name, Sunda62. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:37, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
I changed the wording for the image with Che with Mickey Mouse-style ears added to his head because that came closer to being held in liberal glory than not being held to the same. However, I think we should replace the image, to be honest. I think a good way to show Che without being held to liberal glory is an image showing Che's face as a skull (like here). That would work in showing Che without being held to liberal glory. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2016 (EST)