Without trial, he was declared a murderer, stood against a wall, and shot. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any vencido that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl! Under his own gun dozens died.

Author:Bragore Kishura
Country:Saint Lucia
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):28 September 2011
PDF File Size:4.22 Mb
ePub File Size:1.23 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

In your recent barrage of edits you have several violations of wiki policy. The article is supposed to primarily catalogue what others say about Fontova, not how he self-describes himself or his work. And the appallingly patronising tone you take speaks clearly of your personal contempt for me. Not helpful to you, no doubt, but clearly true no input which dissents from your own view has been allowed on this page.

How can one assume good faith in such circumstances, particularly when any attempt at redress is simply undone by you?

Until my edits, there was absolutely no counterbalancing conservative critique in this entry. And so to those reviews Without even summarising the charges laid out in the book?! That is plain abuse of Wikipedia and when I tried to redress this, why, you declared war Oh good grief!

Draw it mild! I did not eradicate all of your efforts, as you did mine when I first posted my contributions until I persisted with them and you began to relent. Go and read the entry: "Useful Idiot" is a term which is and has for years been used to describe Westerners sympathetic to Communist regimes. You really stand by that? Go and read it: the "entire passage" is partly your work and partly mine.

You seem to think that nobody has a right to alter your sacred text; that if they do, then somehow the "entire passage" is theirs! And what "assertions" exactly are we talking about here? Perhaps you could explain why refusing to include the relevant publication information about his work would be more helpful?! As for the article being supposed to "catalogue what others say about Fontova", why have you worked so assiduously to suppress the conservative view?

If anybody has elected to do this the hard way, it is surely you. The only reason why an overtly "conservative" voice was not already present in the review section is that I had not previously found one and apparently no other editor had either. Thus, it is important to remember that per Wiki policy everything is not proportionally split down the middle with "two sides" - especially if a point of view is WP:Fringe or only held by a small minority.

As for the Fidel book having its own subsection, that was because someone merged it as a stand alone stub into this article. As for the reviews, it seems like only the Che book is ever really commonly reviewed. But simply using your own view based on what publications he wrote for is WP:OR. This is policy and not even up for debate. Moreover, it is WP:OR for you to denote the book "damning", which carries with it a non-neutral connotation.

Now a word like "critical" would be appropriate, but we as editors are not supposed to make judgments on the merits — we are only hear to echo those sources that we find. Redthoreau -- talk , 24 June UTC You did eradicate my initial edit wholesale no comment, nothing. Just gone. Remember, you declared war here. You are singling him out when he is in this respect unexceptional. Rolf Potts calls himself a "travel" writer go and read his website.

But then a control-freak will typically refuse to countenance even trivial edits. You say, "The only reason why an overtly "conservative" voice was not already present in the review section is that I had not previously found one and apparently no other editor had either. The BBC hardly a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy even acknowledges this. You clearly do believe you own the page your minor concessions are merely lip-service to the idea of neutrality.

It was perfectly clear, and now it is one ugly monolithic lump. You own this. And as for your "other editors", who knows whether they are anyone other than your chums? Such, alas, is the nature of Wikipedia. Even now you have called me a "control freak", accused me of belonging to an imaginary "kangaroo court of Leftists" and even implied that perhaps I work for the Cuban government intelligence services or edit the page with my "chums".

It is thus becoming appallingly clear that it will be nearly impossible to collaborate with you in any kind of meaningful way. His barrage of polemical insults whether justified or not is not typical of a historical writer and is closer to someone like Ann Coulter on the right or Bill Maher on the left — both entertaining and irreverent — but not exactly neutral sources for your high school history textbook.

Now obviously he writes in London, the same place where you are editing from, and so perhaps you were more familiar with his work. If I wanted to display the same sort of paranoia and bad faith that you have cast against me - I would accuse you of being him personally and thus adding material about yourself against policy, but I am not going to do that.

Nearly every one of the links at the bottom of the current page to his many archives was added by me personally. I have no problem with leading readers to his work and letting them judge the merits of it on their own.

What you have attempted to do is make WP:OR additions by placing your own opinion and rationale as for why Fontova calls Guevara certain epithets. However, it would not be my place either to try and dissect his writings as you have.

WP:SPA as it is for you. Redthoreau -- talk , 7 July UTC possibly temporary removal I just removed a line that has been the subject of some contention here, hoping that we can get to consensus before putting it back in. Because at least some of the claims are arguably negative, we need to evaluate them carefully.

In my view, it would be better to quote Casey directly, and also to give the reader some context about who Casey is. Wikipedia has several people by the name Michael Casey , and none of them seem to be the author of this book. Oddly, we then go on to mention his books "The Helldivers Rodeo" and "The Hellpig Hunt,"-- but not among published works?

Seems like an easy fix, no? Published works, or just Works, is normally a straightforward list with the usual details of the publications, including the clickable ISBN. Summaries, reviews and so forth about some or all of the books is provided in a separate section.


Humberto Fontova



51th Anniversary of Che Guevara’s Death



Talk:Humberto Fontova/Archive 1


Related Articles